The Economy (Subprime Meltdown, other Economic Issues) -- Page 1

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Congress is in session" - Mark Twain

"If you are not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if you are a socialist in your 40s you don't have a brain" - Sir Winston Churchill

"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin" - Mark Twain


Interview with Joseph Stiglitz

J: This is earth shattering. Can you break it down for us and tell us what the economists have done?

GP: Well, I'll tell you two things. One, I spoke to the former chief economist, Joe Stiglitz who was fired by the (World) Bank. So I, on BBC and with Guardian, basically spent some time debriefing him. It was like one of the scenes out of Mission Impossible, you know where the guy comes over from the other side and you spend hours debriefing him. So I got the insight of what was happening at the World Bank. In addition, he did not brief me but I got some other sources. He would not give me inside documents but other people handed me a giant stash of secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

AJ: So to insulate himself, somebody else did it.

GP: No, I'm telling you. He wouldn't touch it but I really did get from completely independent sources a big stack of documents.

AJ: Just like you got W199I, from the same folks we got it from.

GP: And so one of the things that is happening is that, in fact, I was supposed to be on CNN with the head of the World Bank Jim Wolfensen and he said he would not appear on CNN ever if they put me on. And so CNN did the craziest thing and pulled me off.

AJ: So now they are threatening total boycott.

GP: Yea right. So what we found was this. We found inside these documents that basically they required nations to sign secret agreements, in which they agreed to sell off their key assets, in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved and if they didn't agree to these steps, there was an average for each nation that signed one-hundred and eleven items that they are required to sign on to. If they didn't follow those steps they would be cut-off from all international borrowing. You can't borrow any money in the international marketplace. No one can survive without borrowing, whether you are people or corporations or countries - without borrowing some money and having some credit and ...

AJ: Because of the debt inflation pit they've created.

GP: Yea, well, see one of the things that happened is that - we've got examples from, I've got inside documents recently from Argentina, the secret Argentine plan. This is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. By the way, just so you know, they are really upset with me that I've got the documents, but they have not challenged the authenticity of the documents. First, they did. First they said those documents don't exist. I actually showed them on television. And cite some on the web, I actually have copies of some...

AJ: Greg Palast dot com?

GP: Yea, gregpalast.com. So then they backed off and said yea those documents are authentic but we are not going to discuss them with you and we are going to keep you off the air anyway. So, that's that. But what they were saying is look, you take a country like Argentina, which is, you know, in flames now. And it has had five presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed.

AJ: Isn't it six now?

GP: Yea, it's like the weekly president because they can't hold the nation together. And this happened because they started out in the end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets. I mean, things we wouldn't think of doing in the US, like selling off their water system.

AJ: So they tax the people. They create big government and big government hands it off to the private IMF/World Bank. And when we get back, I want to get to the four-parts that you elegantly lay out here where they actually pay off the politicians billions to their Swiss bank accounts to do this transfer.

GP: That's right.

AJ: This is like one of the biggest stories ever, Sir. I'm sorry, please continue.

GP: So what's happening is - this is just one of them. And by the way, it's not just anyone who gets a piece of the action. The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron.

AJ: And then the globalists blow out the Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy corporation and then they just roll the theft items off.

GP: You've got it. And by the way, you know why they moved the pipeline to Enron is that they got a call from somebody named George W. Bush in 1988.

AJ: Unbelievable, Sir. Stay right there. We are talking to Greg Palast.

BREAK

AJ: We are talking to Greg Palast. He is an award-winning journalist, an American who has worked for the BBC, London Guardian, you name it, who has dropped just a massive bomb-shell on the Globalists and their criminal activity. There is no other word for it. You link through at inforwars.com, you can link to his web site - gregpalast.com, or any of the other great reports he has been putting out. He now has the secret documents. We have seen the activity of the IMF/World Bank for years. They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas stations - they then hand it over to them for nothing. The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss bank accounts. And the plan is total slavery for the entire population. Of course, Enron, as we told you was a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, you name it, from the other reporters we have had on. It's just incredibly massive and hard to believe. But it is actually happening. Greg Palast has now broken the story world-wide. He has actually interviewed the former top World Bank economist. Continuing Sir with all these points. I mean for the average person out there, in a nutshell, what is the system you are exposing?

GP: We are exposing that they are systematically tearing nations apart, whether it's Ecuador or Argentina. The problem is some of these bad ideas are drifting back into the U.S. In other words, they have run out of places to bleed. And the problem is, this is the chief economist, this is not some minor guy. By the way, a couple of months ago, after he was fired, he was given the Nobel Prize in Economics. So he is no fool. He told me, he went into countries where they were talking about privatizing and selling off these assets. And basically, they knew, they literally knew and turned the other way when it was understood that leaders of these countries and the chief ministers would salt away hundreds of millions of dollars.

AJ: But it's not even privatization. They just steal it from the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank.

GP: They hand it over, generally to the cronies, like Citibank was very big and grabbed half the Argentine banks. You've got British Petroleum grabbing pipelines in Ecuador. I mentioned Enron grabbing water systems all over the place. And the problem is that they are destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in Buenos Aires. I mean it is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at the public expense.

AJ: And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the sole control over the water supply now. That's been in the Chicago Tribune.

GP: Well the problem that we have is - look, the IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury. So the question becomes, what are we getting for the money that we put into there? And it looks like we are getting mayhem in several nations. Indonesia is in flames. He was telling me, the Chief Economist, Stiglitz, was telling me that he started questioning what was happening. You know, everywhere we go, every country we end up meddling in, we destroy their economy and they end up in flames. And he was saying that he questioned this and he got fired for it. But he was saying that they even kind of plan in the riots. They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you are going to get riots in the streets. And they say, well that's the IMF riot. In other words, because you have riot, you lose. All the capital runs away from your country and that gives the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.

AJ: And that makes them even more desperate. So it is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are preparing it for this country.

GP: I've just been talking to, out in California just yesterday, from here in Paris, the chief investigators of Enron for the State of California. They are telling me some of the games these guys are playing. No one is watching that. It's not just the stockholders that got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the public pocket in Texas and California in particular.

AJ: Where are the assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred all those assets to other corporations and banks.

GP: Well yea, this stuff has really gone just like a three-card Monty game. I mean remember that there is money at the bottom. You did pay California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12-billion dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now.

AJ: Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and over and over again.

GP: Yea, the system has gotten completely out of control and these guys knew exactly what was happening. Well, you have to understand that some of the guys who designed the system in California for deregulation then went to work for Enron right after. In fact, here I'm in London right now and we have, the British has some responsibility here. The guy who was on the audit committee of Enron, Lord Wakeham. And this guy is a real piece of work, there isn't a conflict of interest that he hasn't been involved in.

AJ: And he is the head of NM Rothschild.

GP: There isn't anything that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty Boards. And one of the problems, he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching how Enron kept the books. And in fact, they were paying him consulting fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power plants here in Britain. And they owned a water system in the middle of England. This is what this guy approved and then they gave him a job on the board. And on top of being on the board, they gave him a huge consulting contract. So you know, this guy was supposed to be in charge of the audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts.

AJ: Well, he is also the head of the board to regulate the media.

GP: Yes, he is, because I have run into real problems, because he regulates me.

AJ: They are also trying to pass laws in England where you've got an 800-year old well, or in some cases a 2000-year old well that the Romans built that's on your property and they say we are putting a meter on it. You can't have your own water.

GP: Yea, and that's Lord Wakeham. I mean this is the guy from Enron. He is a real piece of work. He can't be touched here because like I say he actually regulates the media. So if you complain, he's got his hand on your pen.

AJ: Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. Go through these four points. I mean you've got the documents. The IMF/World Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy the resources of the people.

GP: Right. First you open up the capital markets. That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks. Then you go to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in California where everything is free market and you end up with water bills - we can't even imagine selling off water companies in the United States of America. But imagine if a private company like Enron owned your water. So then the prices go through the roof. Then open up your borders to trade - complete free marketeering. And Stiglitz who was the chief economist, remember he was running this system, he was their numbers man and he was saying it was like the opium wars. He said this isn't free trade; this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies through this.

AJ: Well look, China has a 40% tariff on us, we have a 2% on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry to a country that the globalists fully control.

GP: Well, you know Walmart - I did a story, in fact, if you read my book. Let me just mention that I've got a book out, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" about how, unfortunately, America has been put up for sale. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" is coming out this week. But I have a story in there about how Walmart has 700 plants in China. There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall.

AJ: Exactly, like 1984, then they have big flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything --- it's Orwellian double-think.

GP: What's even worst is they will hire a factory and right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison. You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely stuff for Walmart. It's really....

AJ: And if an elitist needs a liver, they just call.

GP: (Laughs) I know, it's grim. In fact, I talked to a guy, Harry Wu, is his name and, in fact, he broke into, he's been in Chinese prison for 19 years. No one believed his horrible stories. He actually broke back into prison, took a camera with him and took pictures of the conditions and said these are the conditions of factories where Walmart is getting its stuff made at, it's all....

AJ: I was threatened to be thrown off TV here in Austin when I aired video of little girls 4-years old chained down, skinnier than Jews in concentration camps, to die. And I was threatened, if you ever air that again, you will be arrested.

GP: Well you know, it is horrifying stuff that, unfortunately, I have been handed and Stiglitz, was very courageous for him to come out and make these statements. Like I said, he didn't provide me the documents. The documents really sealed it because it said this is what really happened. They really do say sign on the dotted line agreeing to 111 conditions for each nation. And the public has no say; they don't know what the hell is happening to them. All they know....

AJ: Go back into privatization. Go through these four points. That's the key. It sends billions to politicians to hand everything over.

GP: Yea, he called it briberization, which is you sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say that that's worth about 5 billion bucks, ten percent of that is 500 million, you can figure out how it works. I actually spoke to a Senator from Argentina two weeks ago. I got him on camera. He said that after he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988 saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron, that's our current president. He said that what he found was really creepy was that Enron was going to pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can you make such an offer? And he was told, not by George W. but by a partner in the deal, well if we only pay one-fifth that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank account. And that's how it's done.

AJ: This is the ....

GP: I've got the film. This guy is very conservative. He knows the Bush family very well. And he was public works administrator in Argentina and he said, yea, I got this call. I asked him, I said, from George W. Bush. He said, yea, November 1988, the guy called him up and said give a pipeline to Enron. Now this is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to know Ken Lay until 1994. So, you know.....

AJ: So now they are having these white-wash hearings. You know I was at Enron yesterday in Houston because I'm now here in Austin. We were like 30-feet from the door, right on the sidewalk and I have it on video - goons came up and said you can't videotape. I said go ahead and have me arrested. I mean I'm talking on the sidewalk, Greg.

GP: Well, you know, I was there in May, telling people in Britain you've never heard of Enron, but ... And these are the guys who have figured out how to (garbled) this government. In fact, we saw some interesting documents, a month before Bush took office, Bill Clinton, I think to get even with Bush's big donor, cut Enron out of the California power market. He put a cap on the prices they could charge. They couldn't charge more than one-hundred times the normal price for electricity. That upset Enron. So Ken Lay personally wrote a note to Dick Cheney saying get rid of Clinton's cap on prices. Within 48 hours of George W. Bush taking office, his energy department reversed the clamps on Enron. OK, how much is that worth for those guys. You know that has got to be worth, that paid off in a week all the donations.

AJ: Listen to the bombs you are dropping. You are interviewing these ministers, former head of IMF/World Bank economist - all of this, you've got the documents, paying people's Swiss Bank accounts, all this happening. Then you've got Part 2, what do they do after they start imploding?

GP: Well, then they tell you to start cutting your budgets. A fifth of the population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the education budgets, I mean horrible things. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a recession that was created by these guys, you are really going to absolutely demolish this nation. After we were attacked on September 11, Bush ran out and said we got to spend $50 to $100 billion dollars to save our economy. We don't start cutting the budget, you start trying to save this economy. But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70% interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking. because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.

AJ: But Greg, you said it yourself and the documents show it. They first implode the economy to create that atmosphere. They institute the entire climate that does this.

GP: Yea, and then they say, well gee, we can't lend you any money except at these loan-shark rates. We don't allow people to charge 75% interest in the United States. That's loan-sharking.

AJ: Part 3 and Part 4. What do they do after they do that?

GP: Like I said, you open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars. And once you have destroyed an economy that can't produce anything, one of the terrible things is that they are forcing nations to pay horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. And by the way, that's how you end up with an illegal drug trade, what's there left to survive on except sell us smack and crack and that's how...

AJ: And the same CIA national security dictatorship has been caught shipping that in.

GP: You know, we are just helping our allies.

AJ: This is just amazing. And so, drive the whole world down, blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?

GP: Well, in Part 4, you end up again with the taking apart of the government. And by the way, the real Part 4 is the coup d'etat. That's what they are not telling you. And I'm just finding that out in Venezuela. I just got a call from the President of Venezuela.

AJ: And they install their own corporate government.

GP: What they said was here you've got an elected president of the government and the IMF has announced, listen to this, that they would support a transition government if the president were removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in politics - they would just support a transition government. What that effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the military overthrows the current president, because the current president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this and that. And he said, I don't have to do nothing. He said what I'm going to do is, I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well, as soon as they did that, they started fomenting trouble with the military and I'm telling you watch this space: the President of Venezuela will be out of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow him to raise taxes on the oil companies.

AJ: Greg Palast, here is the problem. You said it when you first came out of the gates. They are getting hungry, they are doing it to the United States now. Enron, from all the evidence that I've seen was a front, another shill, they would steal assets and then transfer it to other older global companies, then they blew that out and stole the pension funds. Now they are telling us that terrorism is coming any day. It's going to happen if you don't give your rights up. Bush did not involve Congress and the others who are supposed to be in the accession if there is a nuclear attack in the secret government, Washington Post -"Congress Not Advised of Shadow Government." We have the Speaker of the House not being told. This looks like coup d'etat here. I'm going to come right out with it. We had better spread the word on this now or these greedy creatures are going to go all the way.

GP: I'm very sad about one thing. I report this story in the main stream press of Britian. I'm on the BBC despite Lord Wakeham. I know he doesn't like me there. I'm in the BBC, I'm in the main daily paper, which is the equivalent of the New York Times or whatever, and we do get the information out. And I'm just very sorry that we have to have an alternative press, an alternative radio network and everything else to get out the information that makes any sense. I mean this information should be available to every American. I mean, after all, it's our government.

At http://www.gregpalast.com/ you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast's London Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.
--

If you would like information about investing your money in gold or silver, I recommend calling:

Daniel H. DiVito
Account Executive
Swiss America Trading Corp.
1-800-289-2646 x-1068
---

Capitalism and the Financial Crisis
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

There has always been contempt for economic liberty. Historically, our nation was an important, not complete, exception. It took the calamity of the Great Depression to bring about today's level of restrictions on economic liberty. Now we have another government-created calamity that has the prospect of moving us even further away from economic liberty with the news media and pundits creating the perception that the current crisis can be blamed on capitalism. We see comments such as those in the New York Times: "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal. Or, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Another says, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown (the British Prime Minister) has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation."

First, let's establish what laissez-faire capitalism is. Broadly defined, it is an economic system based on private ownership and control over of the means of production. Under laissez-faire capitalism, government activity is restricted to the protection of the individual's rights against fraud, theft and the initiation of physical force.

Professor George Reisman has written a very insightful article on his blog titled "The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis." You can decide whether we have in an unregulated laissez-faire economy. There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.

Here's my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy? Better yet, tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed. You say, "Williams, there's a reason for this government control." Yes, there's a reason for everything but that does not change the fact that there is massive government control over our economy.

It is incorrect to say that laissez-faire or free markets are unregulated. There is ruthless regulation, but it's not by government. Take the mortgage industry. In the absence of government interference, it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government's Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will.

When businesses make unwise decisions that lead to bankruptcy, their assets are sold off to someone else who might be able to put them to wiser use. Government bailouts give businesses a reprieve that the market wouldn't give them. Bailouts have at least two effects. They permit continued unwise use of resources and it creates what economists call moral hazard, the expectation of future bailouts and others hopping on the bailout wagon.

The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low and the congressional and White House market interference in the name of more home ownership. In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they're doing?
---

Voters think Obama's the Ronald Reagan tax-cutter of the 2008 election
Lawrence Kudlow
Monday, November 03, 2008

Wouldn't it be the height of irony if Barack Obama wins this election as the Ronald Reagan tax-cutter? His tax plans are severely flawed and his campaign narrative to support them is all wrong. And yet a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 31 percent of voters believe Obama is the real tax cutter, while only 11 percent choose McCain.

Believe it or not, Obama seems to have swiped the tax-cut issue from the Republican party. How can this be?

Well, for almost two years Obama has talked about cutting taxes for 95 percent of the people. McCain has no such record. And even though McCain has launched a strong Joe the Plumber investor-class tax-cutting surge in the last days of the campaign, it may not be enough to significantly impact Tuesday's voting results.

This is bad news since Obama has some pretty strange views on taxes. Just look at his recent explanation for the decline in third-quarter GDP. He calls it "a direct result of the Bush administration's trickle-down, Wall Street first, Main Street last policies that John McCain has embraced for the last eight years and plans to continue for the next four."

Is Obama really blaming the Bush tax cuts for this recession?

After the bursting of the tech bubble and the 9/11 attacks, George Bush lowered tax rates across-the-board for individuals and investors. For five years the stock market rallied without interruption -- the longest bull market without a correction in post-WWII history -- while the economy expanded for six years, a bit longer than the average post-war recovery cycle.

And Obama wants folks to believe that tax cuts caused this downturn? Not the credit shock? Not the Obama-supported government mandate to sell unaffordable homes to low-income people and the pressure on Fannie and Freddie to securitize these loans? Not the oil shock?

No self-respecting Keynesian would buy into this. Yet Obama was at it again in Monday's Wall Street Journal, saying, "It's not change to come up with a tax plan that doesn't give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans."

Regrettably, not even John McCain has contradicted this. But the facts speak otherwise.

For example, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says the Bush tax cuts -- which McCain would maintain -- provided substantially more relief than middle-class Clinton-era tax rates: A single earner making $30,000 will pay $2,756 under 2008 Bush tax law compared with $3,157.50 under Clinton tax law (in 1999). That's a larger Bush tax cut by 8.7 percent. A married couple earning $50,000 will pay $4,012 under Bush compared with $5,085 under Clinton. That's a bigger Bush tax cut by 21 percent.

So the facts of a middle-class tax cut are far different from what Obama claims. Obama also says his tax rates will be below those of Ronald Reagan. Wrong. Obama will raise the top rate to 39.6 percent, whereas Reagan left taxpayers with only two brackets of 15 and 28 percent.

Incidentally, the income cap for Social Security and Medicare taxes was about $42,000 when Reagan left office, compared with $104,000 today and the threat that Obama will raise that cap significantly.

It's also worth noting that the Reagan tax-reform bill of 1986 mistakenly allowed the capital-gains tax rate to move up to 28 percent from 20 percent. Many believe this was a significant factor in the stock market crash of 1987.

Similarly, Obama intends to raise the cap-gains tax rate from 15 to at least 20 percent. It's a risky move. Of course, Obama says only rich people will pay the higher cap-gains rate. But the reality is that a cap-gains tax hike will raise the after-tax cost of all capital, which will depress the future value of all equity assets.

McCain has recently proposed a reduction in the capital-gains tax rate from 15 to 7.5 percent. With 100 million-plus investors out there, and nearly two of every three votes in national elections being made by shareholders, this is right on target. Last Friday, McCain told me in an interview that a "low capital-gains tax is probably the greatest incentive for investment that we have in America today."

In the frenetic final hours of the campaign McCain is also talking up his corporate tax cut, which would be a tremendous boost to plunging stock prices since corporate profits are the mother's milk of stocks. Indeed, McCain's overall tax-cut plan is far more powerful than Obama's when it comes to creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. But his marketing effort appears to be too little, too late.

These things do, however, have a way of balancing out: If Obama and the Democrats go on a tax-hiking spree to penalize successful earners and investors, they will pay for it dearly in 2010 and beyond.
---

Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama, In His Own Words
Laura Hollis
Monday, November 03, 2008

It's down to the wire. Is there anything left to be said? Any argument that will persuade those still waffling, or change the minds of those still inclined to vote for Obama? I think so. So I'll offer one last observation of my own. And here it is: Obama supporters point with dewy-eyed admiration to his years as a "community organizer" as proof of his readiness to lead. What they overlook is the fact that a commitment to ideological stealth (read "deception"), a philosophy of class and race envy, a deeply-held resentment of those who have been successful, a disdain for the foundational documents of the nation, a messianic sense of personal superiority, and a willingness to attack those who disagree with you through use of the political machine -- may seem like valiance when done by a struggling underdog. But those same attitudes, inclinations and tactics take on a very different aspect when the person with them is the most powerful human being on the planet.

Now I'm going to let Obama speak for himself in this rest of this article. Despite the monolithic efforts of our Pravda press to bury, suppress, deny and cover up for Barack Obama and his anti-business, anti-life, anti-white, and anti-American sentiments, laudable efforts of the few principled journalists we have left in this country have unearthed speeches and interviews with the Anointed One that make the case against the possibility of his presidency far better than any pundit or columnist could.

So why take our word for it, when you can listen to what Barack Obama himself has said? In these last few hours before you vote, as you contemplate what you are looking for in the leader of the free world, here are just a few of Obama's Greatest Hits for you to ponder:

The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. "

But Obama says: "The Constitution is a flawed document."

The President appoints U.S. Supreme Court justices, who serve for life once confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

But Obama's view of the Supreme Court: "[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth ... It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

The reason Justice is represented in American with scales and a blindfold is because judges are supposed to dispense justice without regard to who is before them.

But here's Obama's view of "blind" justice: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

The President's energy policy should benefit users and providers of energy.

So let's listen to Obama's views of energy policy: "[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." And "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The President should extol the American promises of protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Here's Obama's view of the value of human life: "That's above my pay grade."

The American economic system rewarding individual initiative has created more prosperity for more people than any other system in human history. We now know that higher taxes crush new business and business growth, and reduce jobs.

Obama's (now infamous) view of taxation? "Spread the wealth."

And perhaps less well-known, in an interview with ABC News, anchor Charlie Gibson asked, "[I]n each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? "

Here's what Obama says: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

And what about Obama's view of the First Amendment? Threats of criminal libel prosecutions, Justice Department intimidation, and no promise to veto the "Fairness Doctrine" if his compatriots in Congress pass it.

The President's most significant responsibility is the safety of the American people.

So what is Obama's view of Iran, a country currently building nuclear reactors? "Iran ... [is] tiny ... [it doesn't] pose a serious threat to us. Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Last, but not least, my personal favorite. A quote not from Barack Obama, but his wife, Michelle, when asked about her husband running for President.

Michelle Obama's views about her husband running for President? "It's way too soon. He hasn't done anything yet."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Now if we could just keep it that way.
---

Obamageddon... Fiction?
Douglas MacKinnon
Monday, November 03, 2008

This article is from the July issue of Townhall Magazine. To subscribe to twelve issues of Townhall Magazine and receive a free copy of Craig Shirley's Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign that Started it All, click here.

The four-star general momentarily opened his bloodshot eyes, looked at the five others in the secure conference room as they prepared coffees or grabbed bottled water or soda, and just as quickly closed them. During his thirty-two year career wearing the uniform of the United States Army, he could not remember a time when his eyelids were so heavy, nor his mind so troubled. Everything had gone so tragically bad so quickly that assigning blame was now a useless exercise to be carried out by future historians. Survival was all that mattered.

The general had never considered himself a political animal. He was a professional soldier whose only job was to safeguard the sovereignty of the United States and the welfare of her people. With each passing day, that sacred responsibility slipped further from his control as predicted, but mostly ignored forces, now unleashed their evil upon the homeland.

Being more pragmatic than political, the general paid very close attention when, back in 2007, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut had stressed that the 2008 presidential election was "the most important of my lifetime." The senator articulated that opinion for one reason and one reason only: terrorism.

The general respected Lieberman. He felt the senator truly did seem to be a politician willing to put country before party. And for that, the general knew, Lieberman had paid a heavy political price as the far-left of the democrat party savaged him. They savaged him when he supported the war in Iraq and they especially savaged him when he endorsed Republican Senator John McCain over liberal Barack Obama.

As a war-fighter and a career military officer, the general knew that sometimes things were as simple and as straightforward as they seemed. Experience did matter in the world and lessons ignored were often pain revisited.

When the former Democrat and now independent senator outlined his most crucial reason for supporting McCain over Obama, the general found himself in complete agreement. Said the senator at the time, "... We're a nation facing great challenges in the world, most immediately from Islamist extremism and the expression of force from Al Qaida and the terrorist groups in Iran. John McCain understands that and is ready to approach that problem with the combination of strength and building alliances... He's also ready to be president as we face another chapter in our relations with the rest of the world, and that is the rise of great powers that we want to have peace with, but we will only really have peace with if we're strong. I'm talking about Russia and China, particularly... ... We've got to put the national interest ahead of partisan interest... So I think this is going to be a very important election... the most important in my lifetime... When you vote for president, you vote for the person. And I think, toe to toe, experience to experience, national interest above all else, the guts to take on people in his own party if he disagrees with them, John McCain can and should win this election."

With his eyes still closed, and as his colleagues took their places around the conference table, the general massaged his temples with his fingertips and mentally repeated Lieberman's words: "John McCain can and should win this election." And yet... he didn't. Not by a long-shot.

It was because McCain had lost an election that he deserved to win and that the country desperately needed him to win, that the general had called this meeting. Sometimes things were as simple and as straightforward as they appeared. In direct contrast to the false "moderate" image the candidate and many of his enablers in the mainstream media had crafted to get him elected, minutes after taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009, now President Barack Obama, did what came naturally. He tacked as far left as possible, and in the process, opened a Pandora's box that was bringing the United States to its knees.

Almost two years into the Obama administration and the nation had been hit multiple times by terrorist attacks. The first since September 11, 2001.

While conservative in his beliefs, the general tended to keep all politicians at arms length. Republicans included. That said, he and his colleagues at the Pentagon did have an appreciation for the mindset of former President George W. Bush when it came to terrorists, their foreign sanctuaries, and the best method for dealing with them. The Bush doctrine was to crush them where they ate, where they slept, and where they planned.

Soon after taking office, President Obama not only worked with the Democrat majority in Congress to rescind all aspects of the Patriot Act, but during his first national press conference, declared that the Bush doctrine of destroying terrorists bent on the eradication of the United States from the face of the earth was, "immoral, obscene and criminal," and that "charges would be filed against those in our military and intelligence services who carried out these crimes against humanity."

"Humanity," snorted the general as he opened his eyes, took out a pen, and prepared to start a meeting that some in the media and the Obama White House would most assuredly label "traitorous" in nature had they been privy to its location and subject matter.

The "humans" that President Obama sought to treat as criminals instead of terrorists -- including and especially those he had released from Guantanamo -- quickly and lethally reconstituted themselves once the new president outlawed the harsh measures employed by the previous administration. Once rebuilt, rearmed, re-teamed, and refunded, the terrorists logically began to strike out at their most despised enemy: The United States.

With a massive explosion in the Galleria section of Houston, two corporate jets being flown into the Sears Tower in Chicago, ten bombs simultaneously detonated at various popular and packed movie houses in New York City, and seven suicide bombings in some of Washington, DC's most well known restaurants and hotels, the terrorists announced that they were once again, a fanatical force to be dealt with. A force, that had not only just killed over four-thousand Americans, but in conjunction with the Obama tax increases, Jimmy Carter-like interest rates, and growing unemployment, had crippled the U.S. economy.

Joining the general at the highly secret meeting taking place at the Fort Myer Military Community in Arlington, Virginia, were one admiral, an air force general, and three high-level officials from the FBI, Homeland Security, and the CIA. As things in the nation continued to spiral out of control, these six individuals -- who independently controlled or exercised tremendous sway over essential parts of the government -- decided it was imperative that they start meeting as a group to honestly asses the damage being done to the republic and to weigh their options. When they first began, they were gathering once a month. Current events had them accelerate that schedule to once a week.

Before being called upon by the four-star army general, the assistant director of the Office of Counterterrorism at the FBI spoke up. "We have essentially lost control over our Southwest border. I know we have a lot on the agenda today, but I think it's important to make that point. What was once sovereign is now either in the hands of ultra-violent Mexican drug cartels with high-grade military ordinance, or being crossed daily by elements of Hezbollah and Al Qaida."

The admiral, who brought his own list of emergencies -- which kept his mind off the now sieve-like U.S.-Mexican border -- responded first. "Hezbollah? Actual Hezbollah fighters are crossing into our nation from Mexico?"

"Yes, admiral." Nodded the FBI agent. "It was Hezbollah fighters who carried out the bombings of the movie theaters in New York. Some went to the East coast. Some the West coast. Our intelligence traffic has picked up again. Just as it did before New York was hit. I suspect these guys are about to target Los Angeles, San Francisco, or both."

"Well if you know that," said the admiral in a rising tone. "Why don't you just stop them. The last time I checked, that was your job."

"John," said the army general as he put his hand on the admiral's forearm. "Let's not forget we're all on the same team here and that everyone is doing the best they can under impossible circumstances."

Before the admiral could respond, the FBI agent continued. "That's okay, general. I know the admiral is a little stressed. We all are."

The agent then turned in his chair to better face the navy man "Sir, I understand that your fleet has all it can handle trying to detect and stop the submarines being sent into our waters by rogue nations. Not the least of which, those being sent in by Hugo Chavez. And it's Chavez, that I'd like to focus on for a minute."

The agent took a long sip of his still steaming black coffee before continuing.

"A few years ago, the House Committee on Homeland Security -- Subcommittee on Investigations -- released a chilling report titled "Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border." As expected, the vast majority of the mainstream media ignored it or labeled it xenophobic. Furthermore, many politicians either ignored it or attacked it in a shameful attempt to get Hispanic-American votes. Well, watch out what you wish for. Since the current administration has torn down the limited amount of border fence that was built with precious taxpayer money, the number of illegal aliens streaming into our country is now approaching one-million per year. Among those numbers are hundreds -- and most likely thousands -- of Islamic fighters."

"Thousands," whispered the incredulous admiral.

"Yes, sir. In that House Committee report that was assailed by the liberal democrats and their servants in the media, it was detailed back then -- we are talking almost five years ago -- that Venezuela was the hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere and that Hugo Chavez was the ring-leader. The same Chavez who recently spent billions buying Russian submarines which he is now using to target our coasts and harass your fleet... "

The admiral took a quick look at the agent and the others in the conference room before answering. "Don't I know it. Under the current rules of engagement issued by the White House, I'm not allowed to respond to his constant and escalating provocations."

"Sadly," responded the agent. "It's not hard to figure out why. Naively and irresponsibly, President Obama and his sycophants thought that once George W. Bush was out of power, Chavez and the terrorists would embrace the United States and all would be forgiven. It's a cliché, but it's true. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. President Obama forgot very recent history and we are all paying an extreme price for his faulty memory or partisan agenda."

Knowing the answer, the general still asked. "What did he forget, Tom?"

The FBI agent compressed his lips and shook his head before answering. "President Obama forgot that the World Trade Center in New York was first hit after Bill Clinton became president. He forgot that while September 11th happened on the watch of George W. Bush, it was conceived, planned, and financed while Bill Clinton was still president. He forgot that many of the hijackers lived in the United States. That they were raising their families here. That they could see beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the indoctrination they received from the Wahhabi sect was a pack of lies and yet, they still flew those planes into those buildings. He forgot that we are dealing with insane people like Chavez and the Jihadists. People who don't care if the President of the United States is a liberal or a conservative, a Republican or a Democrat. He forgot that the minds of these people are so twisted with hate, that you can't meet with them, you can't be their buddy, and you can't reason with them. He forgot that if you don't kill them first, they will kill you and in the process, destroy all you believe in. His ideology and the ideology of those he surrounds himself with, prevented him from seeing, or at least acknowledging the obvious. Simply put, the president forgot or ignored the truth."

The agent took another sip of coffee and cleared his throat. "To get back to your question, Admiral. Domestically, we have killed tens of these Islamic fighters and captured hundreds. We just can't keep up their numbers as they infiltrate the United States. Worse, because three Supreme Court Justices immediately announced their retirement upon the swearing in of President Obama so he could tilt the Court liberal, we have trouble even keeping some of these murderers locked-up. To wrap up my unscheduled filibuster, should President Obama need further clarification as to the intentions of Hugo Chavez, he merely needs to ask the NSC for a copy of Chavez's latest interview with Al Jazeera television. During the interview, which took place in Iran where Chavez was solidifying his own nuclear program, the dictator spelled it out all very clearly when he said, 'I am on the offensive because attack is the best form of defense. We are waging an offensive battle against evil.' Now, as much as it may hurt the feelings of the President to learn that, in spite of his appeasement campaign, terrorists and thug leaders still don't like him and even consider him 'evil,' that's the reality he's inherited and the national disaster he's handed to all of us in this room."

"Thank you, Tom," said the general as he tapped the highly polished conference table with his pen. "As four other people still need to report on their corners of gloom and doom, why don't we get on with it. Admiral?"

***

A little more than two hundred and twenty-five miles to the Northeast, a middle-aged man wearing gray slacks, a blue blazer, and a tie-less light blue dress shirt, sat alone at a green wooden table in Bryant Park and quietly wept.

As his mood could not have been more somber, he deliberately picked a corner of the park still bathed in the late morning sunlight. As the park was located behind the New York public library on 5th Avenue, and surrounded by the skyscrapers of 6th Avenue and the cross streets, he knew his time in the warm sunshine would be limited. That was okay by him. He just needed it to last long enough to make one phone call.

In the middle of the third ring, his call was answered. "Hello."

"Hi, dad," said the man in a halting voice.

"What's wrong, son?" Asked the father from his home in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

The man let out a small laugh as he wiped away a tear with the sleeve of his sport-coat. "You mean since we talked last night? Well, aside from the fact that I'm still a mental wreck and can't imagine living in a world without Susan, I just quit the paper. I want to come home."

The father tried to keep his voice as neutral as possible. "You just quit your job at The New York Times."

"Yes, dad," answered the man as he automatically crouched down while watching a large white truck pass by on 6th Avenue. "I had to. It's what I started to tell you last night. No matter how many ways I look at it, if I want to be honest with myself, then I have to admit that my paper with its monolithic liberal mindset, bears some responsibility for this new wave of terrorist attacks."

"Son. These terrorists have sick minds... "

Before he could continue, his son angrily cut him off. "So what. If you enable a sick or murderous mind, aren't you just as guilty? Dad, my wife was killed in one of those movie house explosions over six weeks ago. This is not some liberal academic exercise. My life as I know it has been destroyed. What role did my paper play in letting the terrorists reconstitute themselves and enter our country. What role... what role... did I play?"

"Oh, son," said the father as he tried to comfort his only child. "Don't be ridiculous."

"It's anything but ridiculous, dad." Said the son as he held the cell phone tighter to his left ear. "I've been with this paper for over ten years. I've been here as we only reported the negative from Iraq and none of the positive. I've been here the whole time this paper led a non-stop campaign against the Patriot Act. I've been here as this paper deliberately chose to publish national secrets. Stories that aided and abetted the enemy. The enemy, dad. Terrorists. The New York Times -- because of their blind hatred of George W. Bush -- published stories that alerted the terrorists to our methods for tracking them and gathering intelligence regarding their next attacks."

"But that was the paper, son. You didn't write those stories."

"Oh please, dad. We both know better than that. I know the people responsible. I socialized with them. I worked with them. I knew it was wrong and never said a word. I never quit in protest. I never did anything until it was too late."

"You're still in shock. You are being way too hard on yourself. Come home for a few days and... "

The man jumped from his chair and yelled back into the phone. "That's bull, dad. I'm not being hard enough on myself. What's the true definition of traitorous behavior? Huh? What's the true definition? What do you call it when, for night after night, the liberal networks and cable networks air that grotesque montage of U.S. military vehicle after U.S. military vehicle being blown to pieces in Iraq? Who do you think shot that footage, dad? It was the very terrorists who just killed and maimed those brave U.S. troops. That's who filmed it. The networks knew that and still eagerly aired a snuff film shot by terrorists. Define traitorous, dad, because... "

Just then, there was a deafening explosion that rocked the city and came from the direction of Time Square.

With his ears still ringing from the blast, the man could hear his father screaming into the phone, "What was that?"

As the now former reporter for the New York Times watched his fellow park visitors cry, embrace each other, or flee in all directions, he answered his father in the clearest voice he'd had in months.

"The liberal media's legacy, dad. The liberal media's legacy. I pray I see you soon."
---

At Last, an Investigation
Bob Barr
Monday, November 03, 2008

Federal authorities have announced that they are opening an investigation into the collapse of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in America. This step is long overdue, and should be the start of a much broader investigation of potential criminal behavior throughout the financial system.

I have been calling for such an investigation since the financial crisis broke publicly. It is heartening to see at least two U.S. Attorneys, as well as the Attorney General of New York, take their responsibilities seriously.

While much of the blame for the current turmoil in our housing and financial markets can be blamed on bad policies advocated by the current and prior administrations, and the current and prior congresses, there appears to have been massive fraud and other misbehavior in the deliberate overvaluing of mortgage-backed assets, reinforced by the failure of ratings agencies to do their jobs. Well-connected VIPs and derivatives traders made money at the expense of common investors and the public. Yet the authorities so far have done little to bring those responsible to account. Markets must be carefully policed to detect and punish fraud and other criminal behavior.

Rather than ensure transparency and enforce laws and regulations to protect financial integrity, public officials manipulated the system to put more people into homes regardless of their ability to pay in order to win political support.

In particular, Congress pushed banks, like Washington Mutual, to make more and riskier loans to people with poorer credit histories. There was pervasive misuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by politicians, some of who have been leading efforts to stabilize the financial system. Even when problems became evident and analysts began raising the alarm, these same irresponsible politicians killed every attempt to limit taxpayer exposure to bad lending.

Once the entire house of cards collapsed, the Bush administration and Congress, supported by both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, rushed to put trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds at risk to bail out Wall Street, the housing industry, banks, insurance companies, and many others"who did so much to create the current crisis. Instead, the administration and Congress should have been investigating financial fraud, developing targeted measures to restore financial transparency and encourage normal lending activity, and reforming laws and regulations which failed to protect investors.

Having unnecessarily put the taxpayers at risk, it is critical that Congress and the Justice Department ensure tough oversight of the trillion-dollar-plus bailout program.

Already the Bush administration has engaged in bait and switch, promising to use the money to buy up bad securities, but instead using it to buy stakes in leading banks, which is itself bad policy and bad economics. That much money is an obvious target for fraud and corruption as well as bad faith. Prosecutors must keep investigators on alert and indictments at the ready to ensure that criminals do not fleece the taxpayers as they have been by politicians.

We must act quickly to restore integrity to the financial marketplace by enforcing laws and regulations against fraud and other misbehavior. We also must correct policies that led to Wall Street's debacle. Congress must rein in the Federal Reserve, since the latter's 'easy money' policy helped create the housing bubble that just popped. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be privatized and Congress must end its interference in the lending markets.

Politicians, as much as Wall Street traders, were responsible for the current mess. The people must hold elected officials accountable.

When government is the problem, more government is not the answer. And when the same politicians who created the mess are reelected to office time and time again, there is little hope that these same people will resolve our problems. True change"not that of which Barack Obama has been championing"will only come from electing officials who have committed to reducing the size of government and its intervention in the economy.

Even just a few days before the election, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama has fully committed to keeping the government out of the economy. Both support the same policies of government intervention that created the financial crisis in the first place.

Americans cannot afford more big-government fixes for today's problems. Americans cannot afford Senators John McCain or Barack Obama.


China's Path to World Power
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

For decades, before a heedless congregation, some of us have preached the old Hamiltonian gospel.

Great nations do not have trade partners. They have trade competitors and rivals. Trade surpluses are superior to trade deficits. Tariffs on foreign goods are preferable to taxes on U.S. producers. Manufacturing, not finance, is the muscle of the nation.

Economic independence is vital to political independence.

Following Hamiltonian precepts, the United States grew from 13 rural and agricultural colonies into the greatest industrial power in all history, producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods. We were the awe and envy of mankind, the self-sufficient republic, maker of half of the armaments produced by all the nations in World War II.

That is the America we grew up in -- that has now vanished.

Chrysler, Ford, perhaps GM, may be dying. Manufacturing has sunk to 10 percent of U.S. employment, a level unseen since before the Civil War. Europeans and Asians are to assemble in Washington this week to impose upon the United States a New World Economic Order like the one we imposed on them at Bretton Woods in 1944.

Such are the fruits of free-trade ideology.

Across the Pacific, a nation that studied how America rose, and watched as America declined, chose a different path. China adopted and pursued a China First policy of economic nationalism.

In July, Charles McMillion of MBG Services testified to the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China's progress.

Beijing began its astonishing rise by devaluing its currency 45 percent in 1994, slashing the prices of exports in half and making imports twice as expensive. As America threw open her market and invited China to come in and capture it, China had erected a Great Wall around her own.

Results: China's worldwide trade surplus in manufactures, $31 billion in 2001, hit $401 billion in 2007, a 1,300 percent increase, and may reach $500 billion in 2008. China has shoved Germany aside to become the world's greatest exporter and now leads the world in the export of manufactured goods to Japan and the European Union, as well as the United States.

While running trade deficits with Asian neighbors like Taiwan, to tie them politically to Beijing, China is running record trade surpluses with the European Union and the United States, making America and the West as dependent upon China for our manufactures as we are on OPEC for our oil.

Chinese auto production has quintupled since 2001. She now produces more cars than Germany and may exceed the United States in 2009. While Chinese auto exports are still heavily in parts, finished cars are coming soon to a dealer near you. The Chinese will likely run the sword through the last standing member of America's Big Three.

Before 2004, China's manufacturing trade surplus with America was largely in textiles and apparel. But, since then, China's rocketing trade surplus in electronics, computers and parts has far exceeded her surplus in textiles and apparel.

China's trade surplus in computers and components rose from $8.1 billion in 2001 to $73.5 billion in 2007. In cellular phones and parts, her worldwide trade surplus grew from $3 billion in 2003 to $50 billion in 2007, and may reach $60 billion by year's end.

China still imports commercial airliners. But she now has a large and growing trade surplus in airplane parts. This follows the pattern in textiles, computers and autos. First, the Chinese learn by assembling parts in factories in China. Then, China begins to produce the parts. Then, China produces the finished products and goes out to capture the world market, while protecting her own by keeping her currency cheap.

On items the Commerce Department categorizes as advanced technology products, America began running a trade deficit for the first time early in the George W. Bush years. China now exports to us four times as much, in dollar value, in ATP items as we sell to Beijing.

As America mothballs the shuttle, relying on Russian rockets to get our astronauts back up to a space station we built, China is putting men into space and heading for the moon.

Since America ushered China into the World Trade Organization in 2002, Beijing's growth rate has been four times that of the United States, accelerating from an average 10 percent of gross domestic product to 12 percent in 2007.

With her immense trade surpluses, China's reserves have surged from $200 billion in 2002 to $2 trillion. Awash in dollars, Beijing now waits patiently, writes McMillion, to cherry-pick the crown jewels of America's industrial empire -- "patents, talents, natural resources, brands" -- at fire-sale prices in the global crash.

As America plunges into recession and our industry hollows out, while China is still growing at 9 percent, as the 20th century's greatest creditor nation now borrows from Beijing to pay for booster shots for its sick economy, may we hear once again the Bush-Clinton refrain about how the terrible danger we all face is from "protectionism."
---

New study claims FDR's policies prevented recovery
Posted By Personal Liberty News Desk On October 8, 2008 @ 8:00 am In Personal Liberty News, Wealth

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "misguided policies" led to the Great Depression lasting far longer than it should have, according to two UCLA economists.

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian analyzed the economic recovery of the U.S. following the depression and concluded that New Deal measures interfered with the market's ability to self-correct, Newsmax reports.

Roosevelt was wrong to blame "excessive competition" for economic problems, Cole explained. He said that this mistake led to the president allowing workers to demand inflated wages and businesses to collude to inflate prices.

"The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies," Cole told the news provider.

He suggested that a central assumption many economists have held since the end of the Great Depression - that government intervention is necessary to heal wounds created by capitalism run amok - is thrown into question by this research.

A recent CNN Money poll revealed that 60 percent of Americans believe the current credit crunch will lead to an economic depression.
---

You Have A Right To Remain Silent
Posted By Bob Livingston On November 12, 2008 @ 9:00 am In Bob Livingston, Civil Liberty, Personal Liberty Articles

Historically, the legal principal "You have a right to remain silent" has had great protective benefits in protecting one's civil and criminal rights at law.

Did I say civil? Yes, because trickery is involved. Civil investigations compel testimony against one's self -- testimonies which are later used for criminal charges. In short, authorities use civil investigations -- courtesy of your testimony (confessions) -- to build a criminal case against you.

Sounds like the old Star Chamber, where in olden days one was tortured into confession and then tortured to death because of his confession.

We now live in a welfare state -- euphemism for fascism and cover name democracy. The term "democracy" is no doubt the most complete deception in modern times. Never mind the politicians and bureaucrats, the most intelligent minds of our world have bought this facade called democracy hook, line and sinker.

The power of stated propaganda is most disturbing. Democracy is nothing more than benevolent totalitarianism. Don't take this word benevolent too seriously. It simply means that you get social security and food stamps if you will live on "the animal farm" and confess to Big Brother all your sins.

I am just trying to tell you that you are a part of the herd. The only way out of the herd is to first recognize that you are in it. What does this mean? It means that you are on one side and the government and its politicians and bureaucrats are on the other. No, they don't want you to know this or they would lose control -- we have bigger numbers but massive propaganda makes the difference in the balance of power. The government "pays" for everything with the money they print.

Yes, they manipulate your mind against your best interest from cradle to grave. They convince you to eat foods and take vaccinations that will kill you and your children. They create wars of human sacrifice under benevolent terms like patriotism. They set up a Gestapo and call it "homeland security."

Artifices of deception are almost everything you read and hear. We will never get off the animal farm until we recognize the facade of democracy and the absolute despotism behind it.
---

Ron Paul: Government should leave the economy alone
By Personal Liberty News Desk • Oct 22nd, 2008

The U.S. government is mistaken if it thinks that it can help the American people by interfering with the free market, according to Texas Representative Ron Paul.

He told CNN's American Morning program that the bailout will lead to inflation and will end up doing "no good whatsoever" for the country's economic situation.

In addition, he criticized the idea that creating new money and encouraging spending provide the keys to boosting the economy.

Paul characterized these measures as typifying the "arrogant" belief of politicians and bureaucrats that they can regulate the free market.

Instead, the congressman from Texas called for a "drastic" tax cut that would allow Americans to "keep the money they earn."

When questioned about the future of the country, Paul replied that he finds weaknesses in the economic policies of both John McCain and Barack Obama.

However, when asked to differentiate, he said that the Republican's healthcare plan offers "a better approach" but that the Democrat's ideas about withdrawing from Iraq will save the U.S. billions of dollars.

Paul's comments come as chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke has suggested that another economic stimulus package is needed to help heal the ailing economy.
---

Breakdown
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Remember when Democrats lamented the growing budget deficit and spoke of the burden our children and grandchildren would face if we didn't put our fiscal house in order? That was when Republicans ran the federal government and Democrats opposed tax cuts. Now that Democrats are about to be in charge, concern about the deficit has disappeared and spending plans proliferate, even though the national debt passed $10 trillion in September and we added another $500 billion last month.

The latest, but by no means the last supplicant at the public trough, is the auto industry, which wants a bailout to save jobs because its cars are not selling. There is a reason for that and it can be summed up in five words: The United Auto Workers Union (UAW).

Half of the $50 billion the auto industry wants is for health care for its current and retired employees. This is the result of increasing UAW demands, strikes and threats of strikes unless health care and pension benefits were regularly increased. While in the past UAW settled for some benefit decreases while bargaining with the Big Three U.S. automakers, according to the Wall Street Journal in September of 2006, "on average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to its U.S. hourly workers." Those increased costs, including the cost of health care, were passed along to consumers, adding $1,600 to the price of every vehicle GM produced. In February 2008, after General Motors offered buyouts to 74,000 employees, the Center for Automotive Research estimated the average wage, including benefits, for current GM workers had dropped to $78.21 an hour. New hires pulled down a paltry $26.65. GM, now facing a head-on collision with reality, has taken an important first step tow ard fiscal responsibility by announcing the elimination of lifetime health care benefits for about 100,000 of its white-collar retirees at the end of this year.

Contrast this with non-union Toyota, whose total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, are $48 per hour. Those lower labor costs mean Toyota enjoys a cost advantage over U.S. automakers of about $1,000 per vehicle. Is it any wonder that Toyota is outselling American automakers and from plants that have been built on U.S. soil? According to James Sherk of The Heritage Foundation, Japanese car companies provide their employees with good jobs at good wages: "The typical hourly employee at a Toyota, Honda or Nissan plant in America makes almost $100,000 a year in wages and benefits, before overtime."

While many in the Democratic Party have focused on "corporate greed" and "fairness," according to Sherk, "competition, not corporate greed, is the real problem facing labor unions. When unions negotiate raises for their members, companies pass those higher costs on to consumers." Americans used to tolerate those increases, but no more. Competition has brought lower prices for Japanese cars and Americans are buying more of them, taking a pass on those manufactured in Detroit.

The argument made by those favoring a bailout of Detroit is that it will save more than 100,000 jobs in the auto and related industries. But what good does that do if people are not buying cars in sufficient numbers to allow the Big Three to make a profit? This becomes the kind of corporate welfare Democrats decry when it comes to Wall Street. But, then, Wall Street isn't unionized and Democrats want and need the union vote.

What about Chrysler's bailout 30 years ago? It was a loan. Didn't Chrysler pay back the government? Wasn't it worth the risk to save jobs? According to the Heritage Foundation, the $1.2 billion in loan guarantees made by the Carter administration still resulted in a partial bankruptcy for Chrysler. "Most of the company's creditors were forced to accept losses just as they would if Chrysler had gone through Chapter 11, and the company ended up firing almost half its workforce, including 20,000 white-collar workers and 42,600 hourly wage earners. The only people who benefited from the bailout were Chrysler shareholders."

The Heritage Foundation also notes, "If Washington really wants to help Detroit, they could end the regulatory nightmare that prevents profitable, fuel-efficient cars from reaching market." Ford, they say, has begun selling a car that gets 65 mpg, but they're not selling it in America. Why? Because it runs on diesel fuel "and environmentalists in the U.S. have fought to keep diesel taxes high and refinery capacity low."

More government intervention in private industry will bring us closer to socialism. Better to renegotiate the labor contracts, re-train workers for other jobs, or help them get hired at the Japanese auto plants in America than to subsidize a failed economic model for the sake of political gain.
---

Hank Paulson, Naked Emperor
Michelle Malkin
Friday, November 14, 2008

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers' heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now!

And now? The pulled-out-of-the-posterior "$700 billion" price tag has ballooned into the trillions. The "mortgage industry rescue" has expanded to banks, insurance companies, automakers, credit card companies and possibly the entire national volume of consumer lending. Oh, and that vaunted "TARP" component, Paulson admitted this week, is nothing but a four-letter word that rhymes with TRAP.

In September, Paulson offered his lofty pledge: "The ultimate taxpayer protection will be the stability this troubled asset relief program provides to our financial system, even as it will involve a significant investment of taxpayer dollars. I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion."

Two months later, Paulson's conviction melted faster than microwaved butter. "Our assessment at this time is that this is not the most effective way to use TARP funds," he sheepishly told the nation Wednesday.

Hey, who died and put Emily "Never Mind" Litella in charge of the economy?

Paulson explained at his non-mea culpa press conference that he knew when the bailout was signed that it wasn't going to work as sold: "It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3 that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets -- our initial focus -- would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem."

Now he tells us? Would have been nice if he had made this clear -- quickly, forcefully and publicly -- to the Beltway stooges who were pulling the TARP over our eyes. So much for Paulson's earnest transparency commitments on the Hill.

Members of Congress who let themselves be bullied into switching their votes on the bailout should be experiencing the biggest case of buyers' remorse in U.S. history. They fell for what Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek called "the fatal conceit" -- the disastrous idea that a federal bureaucrat has the knowledge to do a better job than the private market in organizing and directing an economy. They gave unchecked power to a single government official without a clue.

Wielding his enormous authority, Paulson is desperately throwing our money at banks in a futile attempt to convince them to lend. Instead, those banks are either hoarding the cash or acquiring more assets. In other words: Paulson is helping the banks that were "too big to fail" grow even bigger with taxpayer backing. Swell.

The White House says: "We'll just trust our treasury secretary to implement the program." President Bush insists "government's role will be limited and temporary." Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank is shrugging off the lack of bailout disclosure by both the Federal Reserve and Treasury. But as I reminded readers before this latest bait-and-switch admission, Hank Paulson is not to be trusted. I repeat:

This is the man who proclaimed the subprime crisis "largely contained" in April 2007; "near the bottom" in May 2007; and "largely contained" again in August 2007. This is the man who pledged that he had "no interest in bailing out lenders or property speculators" in October 2007 and couldn't "think of any situation where the backdrop of the global economy was as healthy as it is today."

This is the man who patted himself on the back for refusing to "put taxpayer money on the line" to rescue Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15 -- and then turned around the next day and engineered the $85 billion taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG. This is the man who vowed he had "no plans to insert money" into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and then turned around and committed $200 billion in capital and credit lines to those corrupt, bloated, crumbling institutions.

This is the man who declared that "the worst is likely to be behind us" in May 2008.

Emperor Paulson's bipartisan courtiers in Congress berated anyone who dared challenge his wisdom. Minority Leader John Boehner sniffed: "This is no time for ideological purity." Well, ideological pollution begat this mess. It's time for a fiscal-conservative counterinsurgency to disrobe and disarm the charlatans before they do more harm.
---

The New World Financial Order
Oliver North
Friday, November 14, 2008

WASHINGTON -- For the past seven years, according to Rep. Jim Moran, "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it." Actually, that "simplistic notion" has been the linchpin of the American system of free enterprise for the past two centuries. It has served to make the United States the most bountiful, wealthy and charitable nation on earth. Yet Moran says that system "doesn't work in the long run."

My fellow Americans, welcome to the long run.

The coincidence of an economic downturn and our most recent political realignment have produced calls for urgent, dramatic, decisive action. Liberal politicians, such as Moran, are suggesting that we all would be better off if we'd adopt a more punitive tax code and use the Internal Revenue Service to redistribute the wealth. Republicans and Democrats already have allied to use our tax dollars to bail out an insurance giant, mortgage companies and financial institutions that made bad loans and extended credit to borrowers who couldn't pay. Coming soon: tax dollars to save U.S. automakers. Attached to all these U.S. Treasury checks: countless pages of new fine-print regulations designed to prevent future financial stupidity -- or to ameliorate its consequences. But as they say in the Marines, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

This week, here in Washington, President Bush is hosting world leaders for a global game of "Monopoly" with yet-to-be-determined rules, regulations and restrictions. Billed as the "Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," the weekend seance is being described by some participants as "Bretton Woods II." For the benefit of those who have forgotten their high-school history lessons, the first Bretton Woods conference -- held in July 1944 in the New Hampshire town with the same name -- officially was called the "United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference." At the time, the United States was the world's only economic powerhouse, and the goal was to construct a functioning, sustainable international economic system in the aftermath of World War II. It almost worked. Almost.

After nearly two years of negotiations and three weeks of formal meetings in the Mount Washington Hotel, the 735 delegates from 44 nations agreed to create the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and rules and regulations for international monetary exchanges, with gold (at $35 per ounce) as the currency standard. Since then, the IBRD has morphed into the World Bank, gold is no longer the "global standard," and thanks to costly energy imports and trade imbalances, the U.S. has become a debtor nation. Now, with the rest of the world following the U.S. into recession, leaders of the most powerful economies have descended on Washington to "fix the problem." It's not a happy crowd.

They call themselves the "G-20": Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. The IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations and the Financial Stability Forum are also "represented." Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- perhaps best remembered for dancing the "Macarena" with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il -- will be there for the Obama-Biden transition team. Nobel laureate Al Gore wrote in a New York Times opinion piece, "The bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis."

Unfortunately, the "bold steps" being contemplated by some of the G-20 participants may prove to be as stifling to the U.S. economy as the solution for Gore's "greenhouse gases." Among the G-20's "official representatives" are those -- such as Brazil's socialist president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva -- who blame the United States for the current economic downturn.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who claims credit for having come up with the idea for this confab, has said that there is an urgent need to "regulate capitalism" and that the G-20 gathering is a "great opportunity" to "build the capitalism of the future." Among other things, he wants to eliminate "offshore tax havens" and is pressing for the means to enforce new international "codes" against "excessive risk taking."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others in the European Union are advocating the creation of a global regulatory agency for financial oversight and "international transparency" for banking activities. He supports giving the IMF unprecedented authority for surveillance over transactions by borrowers and lenders.

Proposals such as these will be very costly, and it won't be just the expense of yet another bloated international bureaucracy. In the rush to establish "adequate regulation and oversight" over financial transactions, too many G-20 leaders are willing to sacrifice national sovereignty and personal privacy. "In the long run," to use Moran's words, that's too high a price for Americans to pay.


JONES BLASTS AIG RETREAT AS OUTRAGEOUS

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) issued the following statement regarding news reports that American International Group, Inc. (AIG) spent over $400,000 on a lavish retreat for company executives after taking $85 billion in bailout money from the Federal Reserve:

"AIG's behavior is absolutely outrageous. The gall of this company to beg for a federal bailout and then spend that money on a posh retreat for fat cats featuring fancy meals and spa treatments is just beyond the pale. AIG should immediately reimburse the Federal Reserve for that money, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should demand that they do so. Chairman Bernanke should also take immediate action to put procedures in place to ensure that no companies receiving bailout money can repeat AIG's egregious behavior."

"This whole episode reinforces why I voted against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package which Congress passed last week. Taxpayers will inevitably get ripped off when Congress doesn't take the time to demand adequate oversight and accountability and instead crafts legislation behind closed doors and rams it through without considering alternatives that would protect taxpayers and be more effective in helping our economy."


Lessons From the Bailout
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

In my more cynical moments, I think that we Americans deserve what we get from our politicians, many of whom can be generally described as nothing less than loathsome. You say, "Williams, that's a pretty heavy putdown." My question to you is how else would you describe these congressmen who are now blaming the financial mess on the failure of the free market? Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called subprime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of denial.

Five years ago, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.

The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution.

In 2002, when the Enron and WorldCom scandal broke, the Congress held hearings and some chief executives were jailed. Who did what was the big story in the major news media almost every night. Congress rushed to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The act placed unnecessary, onerous and costly accounting standards on American businesses. The Enron and WorldCom debacle is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial mess that Congress has created through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the name of "affordable" housing. Have you heard Congress calling for hearings? They haven't called for hearings because many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If Americans are going to be on the hook to bail out these government-sponsored enterprises, at the minimum congressional hearings ought to be held to find out who did what and when.

Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do, the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why.


It has now been a week since Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Bush/Obama/McCain Bailout of 2008 (BOMB), but already there are cries for more!

It seems that $700 billion may have just been a down payment. Some want another $150 billion, while others say it may take four or five times that to get our economy moving again.

Where are Barack Obama and John McCain now? They bear responsibility for passage of the first BOMB but are sure quick to hide their feelings now.

They don't want you to know their real plans for just a few weeks from now. They want you to forget their BOMB and trust them. They must think you are ignorant. Or, at least they hope you and at least 100 million other Americans are. A vote on election day for either McCain or Obama is a vote for more of the same - there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two, and not just on issues of the economy.

But you know that.

A couple of evenings ago I was in a restaurant where the waitress heard us talking politics and specifically about the bailout. In the course of our conversation, she revealed that as a college student, she was concerned that without a bailout, she wouldn't be able to get a student loan for the next semester at college. It was clear that she opposed the thought of our nation going deeper and deeper into debt but she had a genuine fear that unless Wall Street got its bailout, there would be no money left for her and her classmates to borrow.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

All of Wall Street knows that, and so does everyone in Washington. They just want to scare people with vague threats about how not having a bailout will hurt them. It worked for a while, but in the long run, voters are going to figure out the scheme and reject the lies and deceit that is pouring out from the spin masters in the Washington establishment.

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

P.S. - The blame game is underway now with both Obama and McCain blaming the other for the current financial mess. The reality is that both are to blame and neither has a viable plan for recovery.


Here is an interesting video: Proof of Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Economic Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=bz301

---
Obama Enlisted Black Congressmen to Back Bailout

Barack Obama made calls to members of the House Black Caucus and convinced them to switch their votes and support the Senate-passed $700 billion bailout bill.

Several lawmakers told The Associated Press about receiving calls from Obama, who told them that if elected he would help hard-pressed homeowners keep their houses.

Obama originally kept the bailout measure at arm’s length when House leaders began their all-out push to convert members who had voted "no" on Monday, Sept 29. But he called several wavering Democrats who ended up voting "yes" the following Friday.

Obama "made numerous calls" and "helped us gather the votes on the Democratic side to pass this legislation," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of his party's House caucus.

In all, 33 House Democrats switched to the "yes" side, along with 25 Republicans.

Obama said in a statement after the House vote that the nation "is facing one of the greatest financial crises in history." The bill's passage, he said, "was absolutely necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe that could have cost millions of jobs and forced businesses across the country into bankruptcy."

In the first vote Monday, 13 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) voted “no,” helping to defeat the measure. It lost in a 228-205 vote. Had the CBC members voted “yes,” the measure would have gotten the 218 votes needed for passage.

Obama keyed in on five of the CBC members: Reps. Elijah Cummings and Donna Edwards of Maryland, John Yarmuth of Kentucky, and Mike Thompson and Barbara Lee of California. All five switched their votes to support the bill after hearing from Obama, Newsmax correspondent Phil Brennan reported.

According to Cummings, Obama told him that if he won in November he would order an official of the Treasury Department to work with homeowners facing foreclosure to restructure their loans. He added that Obama promised he would try to make changes in bankruptcy laws allowing judges to reduce the amount of the mortgages borrowers owe.

"It's not too often you get the future president telling you that his priority matches your priority," Cummings told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Rep. Yarmuth said Obama had described the bill as "just patching up a hole in the boat to get it to port."


Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role

Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.

Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

“He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

“But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”

Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.

National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.


A Political "Solution"
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Who was it who said, "crack-brained meddling by the authorities" can "aggravate an existing crisis"? Ronald Reagan? Milton Friedman? Adam Smith? Not even close. It was Karl Marx. Unlike most leftists today, Marx studied economics.

Is the current financial crisis going to lead to crack-brained meddling or to some rational actions? Predicting what politicians are going to do is risky business. We will have to wait and see.

Saints are no more common on Capitol Hill than they are on Wall Street. We can only hope that the political "solution" does not turn out to be worse than the problem.

There are times when government intervention can make things better. But that is no guarantee that it won't make things worse. As they say, "the devil is in the details"-- and we don't know the details yet.

Probably most members of Congress don't know the details yet-- and many may still not know the details when the time comes for them to vote on this bailout.

Taking an optimistic view, this biggest bailout of all time may stop the problems in financial markets from spreading into the general economy-- which is currently nothing like the disaster area that the media portray it to be.

Ninety percent of the people on this planet would exchange their economic situation for ours in a minute. The media love hype, and have been dying to use the word "recession" all year but nothing has happened that meets the definition of a recession.

The American economy is growing, not declining. Our unemployment rate is up to 6 percent but there are countries that would be delighted to get their unemployment rate down to 6 percent. Our inflation rate is up a little but many countries would love to get their inflation rate down to where ours is.

Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions-- members of Congress.

Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.

Such institutions-- exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers' money-- are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: "The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn't when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late." The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to "privatizing profit and socializing risk," since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don't work out.

Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing "concern for housing" as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were "overblown."

Maxine Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have also been among the liberal Democrats defending Fannie Mae. Just last year, Senator Charles Schumer advocated legislation to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their already huge role in the mortgage market. Republican Congressman Mike Oxley has also defended these hybrid financial giants.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians' political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them.

This is certainly part of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama talks about. But don't expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama's advisers.
---

A Political "Solution": Part II
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Estimates of how much money a government program will cost are notoriously unreliable. Estimates of the cost of the current bailout in the financial markets run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and some say it may reach or exceed a trillion.

Many people have trouble even forming some notion of what such numbers as billion and trillion mean. One way to get some idea of the magnitude of a trillion is to ask: How long ago was a trillion seconds?

A trillion seconds ago, no one on this planet could read and write. Neither the Roman Empire nor the ancient Chinese dynasties had yet come into existence. None of the founders of the world's great religions today had yet been born.

That's what a trillion means. Put a dollar sign in front of it and that's what the current bailout may cost.

Will that money be spent wisely? It is theoretically possible. But don't bet the rent money on it or you could end up among the homeless.

Whenever there is a lot of the taxpayers' money around, politicians are going to find ways to spend it that will increase their chances of getting re-elected by giving goodies to voters.

The longer it takes Congress to pass the bailout bill, the more of those goodies are going to find their way into the legislation. Speed is important, not just to protect the financial markets but to protect the taxpayers from having more of their hard-earned money squandered by politicians.

Regardless of what Barack Obama or John McCain may say they are going to do as president, after a trillion dollars has been taken off the top there is going to be a lot less left in the federal treasury for them to do anything with.

Already Senator Christopher Dodd is talking about extending the bailout from the financial firms to homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures-- as if the point of all this is to play Santa Claus.

The huge federal debts that we already have are the ghosts of Christmas past.

Financial institutions are not being bailed out as a favor to them or their stockholders. In fact, stockholders have come out worse off after some bailouts.

The real point is to avoid a major contraction of credit that could cause major downturns in output and employment, ruining millions of people, far beyond the financial institutions involved. If it was just a question of the financial institutions themselves, they could be left to sink or swim. But it is not.

We do not need a replay of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the failure of thousands of banks meant a drastic reduction of credit-- and therefore a drastic reduction of the demand needed to keep production going and millions of people employed.

But bailing out people who made ill-advised mortgages makes no more sense that bailing out people who lost their life savings in Las Vegas casinos. It makes political sense only to people like Senator Dodd, who are among the reasons for the financial mess in the first place.

People usually stop making ill-advised decisions when they are forced to face the consequences of those decisions, not when politicians come to their rescue and make the taxpayers pay for decisions that the taxpayers had nothing to do with.

The Wall Street Journal, which has for years been sounding the alarm about the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, recently cited Senator Christopher Dodd along with Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Barney Frank among those on Capitol Hill who have been "shilling" for these financial institutions, downplaying the risks and opposing attempts to restrict their free-wheeling role in the mortgage market.

As recently as July of this year, Senator Dodd declared Fannie Mae and Freddie "fundamentally strong" and said there is no need for "panicking" about them. But now that the chickens have come home to roost, Senator Dodd wants to be sure to get some goodies from the rescue legislation to pass out to people likely to vote for him.

Don't make any bets on how this situation is going to turn out-- except that we can predict that politicians will blame the "greed" of other people. You can bet the rent money on that.
---

Saving Liberal Fannies
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

It seems like only yesterday when Enron and Worldcom collapsed. Throughout these ordeals our national media labored long and hard to paint Worldcom's Bernie Ebbers as the face of Capitalism Corrupted while connecting the dots between President Bush and Enron's "Kenny Boy" Lay, in the effort to demonstrate that corruption in action.

Now it is not a couple of business behemoths in trouble; it's the entire economy that is teetering over a credit crisis brought on in part by corrupt government-sponsored enterprises and liberal politicians. So where are those same journalists now?

They're out there finding fault only with the evil private sector. The mushrooming federal government and the stewards of its never-ending expansion cannot be questioned.

Take, for example, CBS's "60 Minutes," with a Steve Kroft report that blamed the entire debacle on something called credit default swaps. Kroft couldn't find even a single precious CBS minute to focus on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or its most powerful Democratic supporters in Congress like Rep. Barney Frank or Sen. Chris Dodd, or the biggest recipients of their corporate campaign largesse, the second largest being a certain fellow from Illinois currently running for the presidency of the United States.

Financial expert James Grant spun it exactly the way CBS and the Democrats (or am I repeating myself?) wanted, a focus on Wall Street crooks. "I will call it a criminal neglect and incompetence, the people at the top of these firms chose to look away, to take more risk, to enrich themselves and to put the shareholders and indeed the country itself, ultimately the country's economy, at risk; and it is truly not only a shame, it's a crime."

You need only change a couple of words in that statement, and you echo precisely what millions of Americans believe about their elected officials right now.

Steve Kroft concluded: "We requested interviews with top executives at Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and AIG. They all declined." So why didn't CBS request any interviews with top executives at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Because doing that would step on a few media toes.

It would have been enjoyable to see CBS grilling Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd, one of the profligate "Kenny Boy" figures in the current fiasco. The New York Post reported employees called his mansion "Mudd Manor," where he still resides, "an opulent Washington, D.C. mansion replete with expansive gardens, servants' quarters and a home theater." He's the son of longtime CBS and NBC anchor Roger Mudd.

Then there's Fannie Mae executive vice president Beth Wilkinson, who Forbes.com reports was making $3 million per year in salary and bonuses as Fannie Mae collapsed. She resigned when the government took over on Sept. 20. On June 16, 2006, the New York Times reported her naivete on the way in: "Ms. Wilkinson, for example, knew nothing about the mortgage-backed securities at the core of Fannie Mae's business." But on her way out, her cluelessness no longer in doubt, nobody questioned how this woman was qualified.

No one in the media would be so rude as to note that NBC reporter David Gregory is married to Wilkinson and her ill-gotten millions. Gregory even discussed Fannie Mae on the Aug. 10 "Meet the Press" without disclosing his family tie.

Once again, we have to shake our heads as the "mainstream" (how I hate that term!) media work like a grubby protection racket for their friends and ideological allies. At the very same time liberal media elites mock John McCain for declaring the economy was "fundamentally sound," they ignore statements like Barney Frank's line in 2003: "The two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Bill O'Reilly was mocked in media circles for calling Frank out for his "brilliant" mismanagement. But the more scandalous interviews are the network people who interviewed Frank and Dodd and treated them as Masters of the Congressional Universe, instead of the boys who dawdled while Hurricanes Fannie and Freddie rolled into Washington and drowned the financial system. There was no "Heckuva job, Barney" on the network sets.

On NBC, Matt Lauer asked Sen. Dodd penetrating questions like "Did Barack Obama play a major role in the legislation that you're gonna get a chance to vote on this week?" On ABC, Diane Sawyer was even more ridiculous with Dodd, replaying giggly clips of Stephen Colbert saying the financial brink is getting "brinkier." Who said these shows were serious programs holding the government accountable?

No one on these chucklehead programs dared to ask a classic Tim Russert-style question putting Frank's and Dodd's misdeeds and misstatements into a text box. When it comes to corruption and the Democrats, the networks see no evil, hear no evil and definitely speak no evil.


Liquidating the Empire
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers."

So Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover in the Great Crash of '29.

Hoover did. And the nation liquidated him -- and the Republicans.

In the Crash of 2008, 40 percent of stock value has vanished, almost $9 trillion. Some $5 trillion in real estate value has disappeared. A recession looms with sweeping layoffs, unemployment compensation surging, and social welfare benefits soaring.

America's first trillion-dollar deficit is at hand.

In Fiscal Year 2008 the deficit was $438 billion.

With tax revenue sinking, we will add to this year's deficit the $200 to $300 billion needed to wipe the rotten paper off the books of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion (plus the $100 billion in add-ons and pork) for the Wall Street bailout, the $85 billion to bail out AIG, and $37 billion more now needed, the $25 billion for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and the hundreds of billions Hank Paulson will need to buy corporate paper and bail out banks to stop the panic.

As Americans save nothing, where are the feds going to get the money? Is the Fed going to print it and destroy the dollar and credit rating of the United States? Because the nations whose vaults are full of dollars and U.S. debt -- China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs -- are reluctant to lend us more. Sovereign wealth funds that plunged billions into U.S. banks have already been burned.

Uncle Sam's VISA card is about to be stamped "Canceled."

The budget is going to have to go under the knife. But what gets cut?

Social Security and Medicare are surely exempt. Seniors have already taken a huge hit in their 401(k)s. And as the Democrats are crafting another $150 billion stimulus package for the working poor and middle class, Medicaid and food stamps are untouchable. Interest on the debt cannot be cut. It is going up. Will a Democratic Congress slash unemployment benefits, welfare, education, student loans, veterans benefits -- in a recession?

No way. Yet, that is almost the entire U.S. budget -- except for defense, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and foreign aid. And this is where the axe will eventually fall.

It is the American Empire that is going to be liquidated.

Retrenchment has begun with Bush's backing away from confrontations with Axis-of-Evil charter members Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, and will likely continue with a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are already talking "reconciliation" with the Taliban.

We no longer live in Eisenhower or Reagan's America. Even the post-Cold War world of George H. W. Bush, where America was a global hegemon, is history. In both relative and real terms, the U.S.A. is a diminished power.

Where Ike spent 9 percent of GDP on defense, Reagan 6 percent, we spend 4 percent. Yet we have two wars bleeding us and many more nations to defend, with commitments in the Baltic, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans we did not have in the Cold War. As U.S. weapons systems are many times more expensive today, we have fewer strategic aircraft and Navy ships than Ike or Reagan commanded. Our active-duty Army and Marine Corps consist of 700,000 troops, 15 percent women, and a far higher percentage of them support rather than combat troops.

With so few legions, we cannot police the world, and we cannot afford more. Yet, we have a host of newly hostile nations we did not have in 1989.

U.S. interests in Latin America are being challenged not only by Cuba, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Brazil, Argentina and Chile go their own way. Russia is reasserting hegemony in the Caucasus, testing new ICBMs, running bomber probes up to U.S. air space. China, growing at 10 percent as we head into recession, is bristling over U.S. military sales to Taiwan. Iran remains defiant. Pakistan is rife with anti-Americanism and al-Qaida sentiment.

The American Empire has become a vast extravagance.

With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries?

With a recession of unknown depth and duration looming, why keep borrowing billions from rich Arabs to defend rich Europeans, or billions from China and Japan to hand out in Millennium Challenge Grants to Tanzania and Burkina Faso?

America needs a bottom-up review of all strategic commitments dating to a Cold War now over for 20 years.

Is it essential to keep 30,000 troops in a South Korea with twice the population and 40 times the wealth of the North? Why are McCain and Obama offering NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees against Russia, to a Georgia run by a hothead like Mikheil Saakashvili, and a Ukraine, millions of whose people prefer their kinship to Russia to an alliance with us?

We must put "country first," says John McCain.

Right you are, Senator. Time to look out for America first.
---

What You Can Do to End the Tyranny of the Federal Reserve
http://www.naturalnews.com/024486.html
Is the Federal Reserve Engaged in Acts of Economic Warfare Against America?
http://www.naturalnews.com/024427.html


Team McCain/Palin Needs to Tell the Real Economy Narrative
Laura Hollis
Tuesday, October 07, 2008

I thought I'd seen everything with Bob Dole's blundering "I-deserve-to-be-elected-because-it's-my-turn" schtick in 1996. He had no message. There were literally dozens of things that could have been used in opposition to then-incumbent President Bill Clinton (not the least of which were Hillary's failed putsch of medical care, the beginning of what would be an eight-year string of scandals, and the public's throw-the-bums-out sentiment in the 1994 Congressional elections that gave the Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades).

It didn't matter. Dole used none of these. His timing was off from the get-go. He never mustered any momentum -- much less enthusiasm -- among conservatives, and he was trounced in November.

McCain's "strategies" (if you can call them that) and his timing are starting to feel eerily familiar. He seems to have no sense of the public's sentiment. This is either a failure of his advisors, or it is his own impenetrability. Either way, it is hurting him badly.

Case in point -- muzzling Sarah Palin days after a mesmerizing performance at the Republican National Convention. Just when the public -- especially the voting public -- especially the undecided voting public -- needed to hear more from and about Governor Palin, she was whisked off somewhere in a fashion reminiscent of Buckingham Palace's clandestine preparations of a bride for the Prince of Wales.

Second example: as the financial markets were in meltdown two weeks ago, McCain announced that he was "suspending his campaign" to go to Washington and deal with the crisis. Even supporters found themselves wondering, huh? First of all, no one expected the bailout talks to last more than a few days. Was attending to the business of governance for a day or two or three really a "suspension" of his campaign? Instead of lending gravitas, it just made McCain look silly -- particularly when his campaign was "unsuspended" just a day or two later. It also allowed Obama to score points with his pithy observation that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time.

Now -- and this failure is the most critical of all -- McCain appears to be allowing Obama and the Democrats to spread their false and propagandistic version of what caused the banking collapse, utterly uncontested. Instead of telling the public the truth about how two Democratic Presidents and Democrats in Congress manipulated the financial markets, threatened lenders, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to plunder securities, and ignored warnings of impending collapse; instead of hammering home the inexplicable conflicts of interest between Congressman Barney Frank's position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and his lover's position at Fannie Mae; instead of showing the hypocrisy of Obama's receipt of the second-largest campaign contributions from Fannie Mae -- McCain has now decided that the public should reconsider Obama's affiliations with the Reverend Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright and unrepentant bomber and domestic terrorist William ("I'd do it all again") Ayers -- issues that were in the news months ago.

And once again, McCain's and Palin's supporters are left scratching their heads. And writing their articles and blogs. And hosting their radio and television shows. Watching the McCain campaign flounder, and reading and listening to conservative media, reminds me of being at a pee-wee football game, where a confused youngster has, to his own amazement, gotten the ball, and is now headed the wrong way down the field, while well-meaning parents are pointing and hollering, "It's that way! The goal is that way!"

While I agree that Obama's associations are profoundly disturbing, and tell us plenty about his world view and what his goals for government are, the fact is that the public is fixated on the economy at the moment.

It would be one thing if there were no story for McCain to tell. But there is. And McCain and Palin need to tell this narrative to the public. I have personally had conversations with any number of friends and colleagues who were stunned and appalled when confronted with the role of Democratic congressmen in the banking collapse. The National Republican Congressional Committee has a powerful ad that shows the Dems in deep denial. The very same Democrats who are now blaming the Bush administration, while clamoring for even more control over our markets, our financial institutions, our businesses. The truth of these messages can convert people wavering on the issue of the economy, and perhaps leaning towards Obama's seductive siren song of comforting government control.

Why isn't Team McCain moving the ball down the field on this one? It's a simple message: These guys have screwed up enough! Don't take our word for it - we've got it on tape. They've already cost us $850 billion. Why on earth would you put them in charge of anything else?

As with so many other issues, the narrative on the economy favors McCain and Palin. Now if they'd only tell it. It's that way, John and Sarah. The goal is that way.
---

Is the Federal Reserve Engaged in Acts of Economic Warfare Against America?
by Mike Adams
http://www.naturalnews.com/024427.html

(NaturalNews) In 1942, German intelligence officers rounded up skilled Jewish prisoners and launched Operation Bernhardt, a clever scheme designed to counterfeit hundreds of millions of dollars worth of British Pounds and destroy the British economy by flooding it with counterfeit money. Located in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, Operation Bernhardt was, even by modern standards, a runaway success that resulted in the creation of forged bank notes worth 132 million British Pounds.

This "economic warfare" operation resulted in a devastating economic effect on the British economy. You can read the true history of this operation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard

It is important to note that Operation Bernhardt was an act of war, specifically pursued for the purpose of destroying Britain's economy by creating so much new money that the value of the money already in circulation would plummet. This was considered a strategic attack, just as effective as carpet-bombing tank factories or mowing down soldiers on the field with German-made MG42 machine guns.

What does all this have to do with the Federal Reserve?

Today, the Federal Reserve is engaged in an eerily similar operation, counterfeiting trillions of dollars in U.S. bank notes and flooding the U.S. money supply with money created from nothing. The result, of course, is the same as was intended by Operation Bernhardt in 1942: The economic destruction of the target nation. Only this time, the target is the United States of America.

Hilariously, the Fed claims it's doing this to save the economy. Yet the laws of economics tell us that flooding the money supply with trillions of dollars in new money actually harms the economy. And the Fed has been hard at work causing this harm: $250+ billion two weeks ago, $600+ billion last week and $900 billion earlier this week! It's beginning to crank up the printing presses to the tune of a trillion dollars a week, and by doing so, it's contributing to the destruction of the U.S. economy at a pace the Third Reich could have barely imagined.

Has the Fed declared war on the working class?
If the actions pursued by the Federal Reserve were being masterminded by Al-Qaeda, they would be denounced as acts of war. In World War II, such actions were deliberate acts of war. Targeting the economy for destruction by flooding the money supply with counterfeit currency is, by any measure, a threat to any nation.

So why is the Federal Reserve engaged in actions that, if committed by other nations, would warrant a military response? This is not an idle question. I'm not asking this in a satirical way. I'm quite serious about this: Why is the Fed committing acts of economic warfare against the United States of America? (The Fed, by the way, is a private company. It is not, as you've been led to believe, part of the U.S. government.)

The answer is obvious. You've probably already figured it out: The Federal Reserve is at war with America. It's an economic war, of course, not a bombs-and-bullets war. The casualties, though, are just as real: Savings accounts, retirement funds, bank accounts, jobs, businesses, pensions and much more.

By counterfeiting trillions of dollars like a Sachsenhausen operation on steroids, the Fed is carpet-bombing the U.S. economy with an unprecedented flood of fiat currency, causing the exact same economic destruction intended by the Nazis in World War II (but on a much more devastating scale). And it's doing this as part of a new economic war.

Class warfare has begun
What war? The war between the wealthy elite and the working class. The Fed is working hard, of course, to protect the wealthy elite. Over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money has already been earmarked to bail out the rich, elite bankers who lost other people's money in a series of idiotic bets on fictitious financial instruments.

And what are these bankers doing with this taxpayer money? According to an Associated Press report published yesterday, executives of the failed insurance company AIG were sent on a $440,000 retreat "to a posh California resort" less than one week after the U.S. government bailed them out. At the spa, AIG executives enjoyed spa treatments, massages, organic food buffets and bodywork therapy, all while the American taxpayers footing the bill were slaving away in real jobs, doing real work. Want to see the invoice for yourself? View it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/AIG-invoice.gif

That's how this new class warfare is taking shape: YOU (the working class) get all the debt, all the losses, and all the financial burden. THEY (the wealthy elite) get all the profits, all the luxury spa treatments, all the tax breaks and billions of dollars in free money from the Federal Reserve.

In the 1942 Operation Bernhardt, the Germans literally planned to load hundreds of millions of dollars in British Pound bank notes and air-drop them over London. The resulting chaos, it was believed, would shut down the British economy, halting the flow of money needed by Britain to fund its war effort. In the United States today, the Fed is taking a different approach: Air-dropping trillions of dollars into the laps and bank accounts of wealthy bankers and financial institution CEOs, concentrating the massive creation of fiat currency into the hands of less than 1% of the population.

And just to make sure the economic carpet-bombing is a complete success, the Federal Reserve and U.S. government are conspiring to create more than a trillion dollars in new money each week, then flood those funds into banks, businesses and insurance companies. This will, of course, devastate the value of the dollars being saved, held or earned by the wage slaves who labor their lives away under this economic regime. (That would be you and me.)

It's a brilliant plan... if you're interested in destroying a nation. This kind of attack would bring almost any nation to its knees. It's an act of war that requires no violence, no bombs and no destruction of real infrastructure. And yet it achieves what every war in history has ever sought to achieve: The transfer of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.

The Federal Reserve, in effect, has become a modern-day economic Third Reich, and it has set its sights on the U.S. economy.

Acts of economic terrorism?
The Federal Reserve is now doing to the U.S. what the terrorists could never have accomplished: The destruction of a large portion of its economy, its currency and the savings of its people.

The economic losses of 9/11 pale in comparison to the financial destruction that has been unleashed onto America by the Federal Reserve.

Yet, amazingly, it wasn't "terrorists" who put this plan into place. Who was it, exactly? Your Congressional representatives played an important role in allowing this to happen. In a grand, historical betrayal of the American people, members of your own U.S. House of Representatives and Senate voted to initiate a massive economic coup in America, violating the wishes of 99% of the American people (who are aligned against bailing out the rich on the backs of the poor).

Of course, to hear them explain it, their actions are meant to save the taxpayers. Yep, that's their plan: To save YOU, the taxpayer, by confiscating your money and handing it over to the wealthy elite. And whatever money can't be stolen from the taxpayers will be counterfeited by the Fed's money-creation machine.

The Real Agenda: A Massive Transfer of Wealth
We are not watching an economic rescue, friends. We are watching an economic coup. Creating and dumping trillions of dollars into the money supply is an act of war. But it's a war with a specific purpose.

What's happening right now is that the United States is being taken over by King Henry and his accomplices. More than fifty percent of the housing and nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. economy is now controlled by one person -- Henry Paulson -- and that person answers to no one. He isn't elected, he can't be removed from office, and he's subject to no law.

King Henry controls unlimited funds. He can print any amount of money, or confiscate any amount from the taxpayers (by spending taxpayer dollars to bail out his rich friends). If the Federal Reserve is the new Third Reich, King Henry is its Hitler.

The economic war has already been lost by the People. It was lost on September 30, 2008, when Congress surrendered the U.S. economy to King Henry. The People now own nothing but paper money and ephemeral digital account numbers, all of which could be turned into worthless digits overnight by a single decision from King Henry.

In this economic bailout and the Fed's unlimited creation of new money, America has suffered the greatest act of economic warfare in our nation's history. Note carefully that it wasn't conducted by the Nazis, Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda. It was, in fact, put into place by 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans in the House, and a similar majority in the U.S. Senate. (See the complete list below.)

So what can YOU do right now?
A system of exchange is not dependent on the dollar alone. Commerce will survive the collapse of one currency. Trade will go on after this economic chaos passes, and businesses will continue to be an important part of our economic future.

People will still need food, clothing, nutritional supplements, fuel, services, computers, tutoring, services, pet products, children's products, cars, MP3 players and much more. The end of the U.S. dollar is NOT the end of the world. It is simply the end of one empire...

In my view, the best way to financial survive this economic warfare being conducted by the Federal Reserve against the People is to create your own economic abundance by owning (or launching) your own independent income sources.

In fact, I've written an entire report on how to accomplish this. It's called How to Build Your Financial Safety Net. Due to this economic crisis, I've decided to release it at no charge, and it's available right now at: http://www.naturalnews.com/report_financial_safety_net_0.html

Read it if you want to be empowered, informed and insulated from the demise of the dollar. Using the strategies you'll find in that report, you can drastically limit your losses in this economic carpet-bombing of the U.S. economy. In fact, I believe you can emerge with greater wealth than you had when it all started.

You probably won't be getting paid in dollars, however. Expect a new currency to be the future system of exchange in America. But building reliable income streams now is a smart way to survive the coming economic implosion that will put corporations, governments and non-profits out of business. (If you work for a paycheck, your paycheck may be in danger right now.)

What's Really Radical
By the way, do you think this article is radical? Some people have told me that my reporting on the economic situation is "radical." You know what I told them?

I said imagine two households. One household balances its budget, spends only what it brings home in income and has no debt. The other household spends twice as much as it earns. It owes $50,000 on credit cards and borrows money from loan sharks to meet the minimum payments on its credit cards.

Which household is "radical?"

Now consider this: The second household sneaks into the first household and steals money to pay its own debts. On top of that, it has a counterfeit cash printing machine in the basement, and it's cranking out thousands of dollars a week just to attempt to pay off its credit cards. It's immune to the law because it buys off the local police for criminal immunity.

Which household is headed towards financial disaster? Which household has a real future, and which one doesn't?

That second house, of course, is the United States government. My reporting on the U.S. financial situation is downright tame compared to what's really going on behind the scenes. I can't get radical enough to accurately describe the degree of deception and outright theft that's taking place in Washington right now.

History will show that not only were my warnings accurate, they were understated by a wide margin. Reporting the truth is a delicate thing. People can only stomach so much truth at any one time. Few people can handle the whole truth, which is why I usually refrain from reporting it. There are things stated in this article that only hint at much bigger stories that will someday be told by others.

Only the most open-minded, skeptical thinkers can even mentally consider the real truth of what's happening in our world today. Most people have been brainwashed into living in a fictional world, and they are unable to even consider truths that threaten their grip on reality.

As a result, the public has to be led by the hand from one realization to the next, little by little, until they attain the ability to see the world as it really is rather than the illusion that has been constructed for them by the very people running this financial scam.

Video: How Money Creation Actually Works
Check out this video to see how the Fed (and the fractional-reserve banking system) creates money out of nothing:

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000340_fractional-reserve_banking_Federal_Reserve_money_supply.html

How Congress Voted
Here is the list of those Congressional representatives who surrendered your economic future to King Henry. A "Y" means a "Yes" vote (in favor of the financial bailout legislation).

This is, in essence, a list of those who have betrayed the People by conspiring to instigate acts of economic warfare against We the People. ("N" means they voted No. "Y" means they voted Yes.")

ALABAMA
Democrats - Cramer, Y; Davis, Y.
Republicans - Aderholt, N; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Everett, Y; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA
Republicans - Young, N.

ARIZONA
Democrats - Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.
Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, Y.

ARKANSAS
Democrats - Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.
Republicans - Boozman, Y.

CALIFORNIA
Democrats - Baca, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, N; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, Y; Sherman, N; Solis, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans - Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Doolittle, N; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

COLORADO
Democrats - DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Salazar, N; Udall, N.
Republicans - Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, Y.

CONNECTICUT
Democrats - Courtney, N; DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.
Republicans - Shays, Y.

DELAWARE
Republicans - Castle, Y.

FLORIDA
Democrats - Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, N; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Mahoney, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.
Republicans - Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Stearns, N; Weldon, Y; Young, N.

GEORGIA
Democrats - Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, N; Lewis, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.
Republicans - Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII
Democrats - Abercrombie, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO
Republicans - Sali, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS
Democrats - Bean, Y; Costello, N; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, N; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.
Republicans - Biggert, Y; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, Y.

INDIANA
Democrats - Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, N; Visclosky, N.
Republicans - Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, Y.

IOWA
Democrats - Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.
Republicans - King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS
Democrats - Boyda, N; Moore, Y.
Republicans - Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY
Democrats - Chandler, N; Yarmuth, Y.
Republicans - Davis, N; Lewis, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA
Democrats - Cazayoux, N; Jefferson, N; Melancon, Y.
Republicans - Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; McCrery, Y; Scalise, N.

MAINE
Democrats - Allen, Y; Michaud, N.

MARYLAND
Democrats - Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.
Republicans - Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y.

MASSACHUSETTS
Democrats - Capuano, Y; Delahunt, N; Frank, Y; Lynch, N; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN
Democrats - Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Stupak, N.
Republicans - Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.

MINNESOTA
Democrats - Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, N.
Republicans - Bachmann, N; Kline, Y; Ramstad, Y.

MISSISSIPPI
Democrats - Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, N.
Republicans - Pickering, Y.

MISSOURI
Democrats - Carnahan, Y; Clay, N; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Y.
Republicans - Akin, N; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.

MONTANA
Republicans - Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA
Republicans - Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, Y.

NEVADA
Democrats - Berkley, Y.
Republicans - Heller, N; Porter, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Democrats - Hodes, N; Shea-Porter, N.

NEW JERSEY
Democrats - Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, N; Sires, Y.
Republicans - Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, Y; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO
Democrats - Udall, N.
Republicans - Pearce, N; Wilson, Y.

NEW YORK
Democrats - Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Gillibrand, N; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, N; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.
Republicans - Fossella, Y; King, Y; Kuhl, Y; McHugh, Y; Reynolds, Y; Walsh, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA
Democrats - Butterfield, N; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.
Republicans - Coble, Y; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA
Democrats - Pomeroy, Y.

OHIO
Democrats - Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.
Republicans - Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Hobson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Schmidt, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA
Democrats - Boren, Y.
Republicans - Cole, Y; Fallin, Y; Lucas, N; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON
Democrats - Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y.
Republicans - Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA
Democrats - Altmire, N; Brady, Y; Carney, N; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.
Republicans - Dent, Y; English, N; Gerlach, Y; Murphy, Tim, N; Peterson, Y; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, Y.

RHODE ISLAND
Democrats - Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.
Republicans - Barrett, Y; Brown, Y; Inglis, Y; Wilson, Y.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Democrats - Herseth Sandlin, N.

TENNESSEE
Democrats - Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Lincoln, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.
Republicans - Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, Y.

TEXAS
Democrats - Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, N; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Lampson, N; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, N.
Republicans - Barton, N; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, Y; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH
Democrats - Matheson, N.
Republicans - Bishop, N; Cannon, Y.

VERMONT
Democrats - Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA
Democrats - Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, N.
Republicans - Cantor, Y; Davis, Tom, Y; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON
Democrats - Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, Y.
Republicans - Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA
Democrats - Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.
Republicans - Capito, N.

WISCONSIN
Democrats - Baldwin, Y; Kagen, N; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.
Republicans - Petri, N; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING
Republicans - Cubin, Y.


NO AMNESTY FOR WALL STREET
By Chuck Baldwin
September 26, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

At the time of this writing, the U.S. House and Senate are poised to pass a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street. At the behest of President George W. Bush, the U.S. taxpayers are going to be on the hook for what can only be referred to as the biggest fraud in U.S. history.

Virtually our entire financial system is based on an illusion. We spend more than we earn, we consume more than we produce, we borrow more than we save, and we cling to the fantasy that this can go on forever. The glue that holds this crumbling scheme together is a fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note, which was created out of thin air by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve.

According to Congressman Ron Paul, in the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money. The result of all this "money-out-of-thin-air" fraud is never-ending inflation. And the more prices rise, the more the dollar collapses. Folks, this is not sustainable.

Already, Bear Stearns was awarded a $29 billion bailout, followed quickly by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie that will cost the taxpayers up to $200 billion. Then the Fed announced the bailout of AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Mind you, AIG is an enormous global entity with assets totaling more than $1.1 trillion. Moreover, the Feds agreed to pump $180 billion into global money markets. And the Treasury Department promised $50 billion to insure the holdings of money market mutual funds for a year. Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.) In other words, the Federal Reserve is preparing to spend upwards of $1 trillion or more. Remember again, this is fiat money, meaning it is money printed out of thin air.

All of this began when the U.S. Congress abrogated its responsibility to maintain sound money principles on behalf of the American people (as required by the Constitution) and created the Federal Reserve. This took place in 1913. The President was Woodrow Wilson. (I strongly encourage readers to buy G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature from Jekyll Island.) Since then, the U.S. economy has suffered through one Great Depression and several recessions--all of which have been orchestrated by this international banking cartel. Now, we are facing total economic collapse.

But don't worry: the international bankers will lose nothing--not even their bonuses. They will maintain their mansions, yachts, private jets, and Swiss bank accounts. No matter how bad it gets on Main Street, the banksters on Wall Street will still have the best of it--President Bush and the Congress will make sure of that. This is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on.

America's founders were rightfully skeptical of granting too much power to bankers. Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Jefferson also believed that "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Daniel Webster warned, "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money."

Webster also said, "We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no, Sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and a ruined people."

Our first and greatest President George Washington said, "Paper money has had the effect in your State [Rhode Island] that it ever will have, to ruin commerce--oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."

If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

What President Andrew Jackson said to the bankers in 1832 is exactly what an American President should say to these criminal international bankers today. But what George Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama want to do is provide amnesty for the international bankers, just as they want to provide amnesty for illegal aliens. I say, No amnesty for Wall Street, and no amnesty for illegal aliens, either. Instead of sending these banksters on extended vacations to the Bahamas with millions of taxpayer dollars in their pockets, we should be sending them straight to jail!

The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php)

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. Click here for my official campaign web site (http://www.baldwin08.com/)
---

$850 Billion Bailout Fails to Ease Global Financial Crisis
by Mike Adams
http://www.naturalnews.com/024418.html

(NaturalNews) Today the world was rocked by serious financial events that have driven the global finance system to the brink of real disaster. The scary part in all this? The bailout failed to ease fears.

That's right: The $850 billion bailout didn't work. At least not yet. And world markets were crashing today, sending investors running for cover.

The Fed, for its part, created a whopping $900 billion in new money on Monday and shoveled it into the banking system, desperately hoping to create liquidity where none now exists. How does the Fed create money out of thin air? Watch this eye-opening video explanation of how the Fed and the U.S. government conspire to create money out of nothing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpJL6ANnV0

The world now watches and waits to see if the global banking system will retreat from the edge of the abyss.

My best guess is that there's now an 80% chance of a calming of fears later this week, following by the post-bailout hyperinflation trends we've already talked about. Unfortunately, I think there's a 20% chance the entire global financial system will come crashing down over the next few days or weeks, resulting in a mandatory global bank holiday that will result in widespread financial ruin, and then a "rebooting" of the banks that would be messy.

It's very important that you take action to protect yourself now (if you haven't already) from the global financial crisis that's still unfolding. I give specific strategies in my Health Ranger LIVE audio event, which you can read about at: http://www.naturalnews.com/024221.html

The Next Big Wave of Bankruptcies: Corporations and Governments
The next wave of bankruptcies are going to strike corporations and governments very soon. The State of California has already declared it's bankrupt, and it needs a $7 billion loan from Washington just to keep operating.

Corporations, too, are going to be badly hurt in the months ahead, especially following the abysmal Christmas shopping season I'm publicly predicting.

If your paycheck currently depends on a government office or a corporation that sells things to consumers (cars, toys, clothing, books, coffee, etc.), then the future of your paycheck may be in serious jeopardy.

What to Expect Next
I overestimated the post-bailout euphoria. I thought the market would rally on Monday. The fact that it didn't shows that I was too optimistic about my predictions. The situation is worse than I thought. The 800-point nosedive clearly says that global investors are deeply concerned about the future of stocks, bonds, debt bonds and even the U.S. dollar as a currency. CNBC's Jim Cramer even went on the air and announced everybody should "Sell everything!" His prediction? A twenty percent drop across the markets.

Keep a close watch on this situation. These are strange times. Nobody knows exactly what will happen next. Protect your assets, because it has become quite clear now that your government is doing virtually nothing useful to protect them for you.
---

Congressional Birdbrains - Your Health at Risk
by Byron Richards

(NaturalNews) On Monday, Sept 29, the American public witnessed firsthand the utter ineptitude of the United States House of Representatives, hitting Main Street directly in the pocketbook. While leaders try to figure a way out of an impending economic crisis, it is now clear for everyone to finally see that we have an equal crisis in political leadership.

In my efforts to help secure health freedom for all Americans I have had a number of interactions with Congress in the past few years and have reached the following conclusions:

1) The Senate is made up of multi-millionaires who maintain power by accepting and granting favors. Those with large amounts of money, such as the Big Pharma lobby, mostly get what they want even though the American public is typically taken advantage of in the arrangement. Senators don't need their paychecks; they get high on brokering power and facilitating deals to the highest bidder, based on whichever political party is most in control and who their friends may be.

2) While the House has some entrenched multi-millionaires who operate like those in the Senate, most members of the House are not the cream of any crop and could not make as much money in the private sector as they are being paid by their position in the House of Representatives (which includes a retirement plan that would be the envy of every American). Most of these people desperately need their paychecks and will do almost anything to keep them coming.

Collectively, Congress behaves more like a high school click with a cult-like method of keeping its members in line, than representatives of the people.

As the House vote on the economic bailout plan failed, it was plain to see that the members of the House of Representatives, collectively speaking, are not very bright. Many smart people on Wall Street and Main Street were left scratching their heads. If the plan was not good enough to pass, then why didn't they come up with a solution that could pass, rather than send a shock wave through an already teetering market?

The answer is two-fold. Collectively, they don't have enough economic skills to come up with such a plan. Most of them could not run a successful business if their life depended on it, so how could we expect them to solve a real economic problem? And, an election is coming up and a majority of those in tight races put their position as members of the House ahead of everyone else in the country, self-serving to say the least but par for the course.

Our society has something terribly wrong. It is a dark day indeed when talking heads on business cable channels have far more average intelligence than the men and women being counted on to make tough leadership decisions for our country and take effective action.

Within the next 10 years, most likely sooner than later, a costly health care crisis will come front and center and threaten the U.S. economy at least as much as its current problems. Working on a solution based on identifying the actual problems would ease the pain, and give us time to implement better solutions than waiting until the last minute when hundreds of billions are then needed just to put a Band-Aid on a totally broken system. Like the current economic crisis, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. Unlike the current crisis, the taxpayer billions will simply be poured down a drain with no chance to recover anything. The problem is far more serious than either presidential candidate cares to acknowledge, as talking about it or how to actually solve it would cost lots of votes.

Big Pharma fraud is rampant and not only needlessly killing Americans on a daily basis, but racking up tens of billions of dollars in pointless taxpayer expense. Will the government bail out Big Pharma as its sales eventually collapse, putting taxpayers on the hook for more failed businesses? Millions of baby boomers, many of whom by choice have not taken good care of themselves, are entering the world of taxpayer-subsidized health care known as Medicare. The younger generations cannot possibly foot this bill. At the same time equally massive numbers of low income people, many of whom suffer from self-induced obesity, are clamoring to be covered by "socialized" health care. Once again, hard-working Americans cannot possibly foot this bill. Currently, middle class Americans can hardly afford health care for themselves and their families -- much less pay for all the people wanting a free handout. Where is the money going to come from? The "rich" can't pay for everything.

Where will our society draw a line between self-induced health care costs and the obvious need to cover individuals who experience serious accidents or medical problems beyond their control? Only in America can politicians talk about health care while successfully ignoring every elephant in the room. It is no surprise that the Big Pharma sponsored media gives them a free pass. Politicians certainly can't upset seniors, baby boomers, or minorities -- how could they win? Even worse, how can they stay in power? It is a sad comment on the decline of the moral fiber of a society when candidates pander to drooling constituents with a plethora of free handouts -- rather than debating actual issues with all the cards and elephants on the table. We all need to be more productive, not more entitled.

Another aspect of this issue is that of health freedom, as your free access to dietary supplements and natural remedies teeters on the brink of extinction as CODEX, regional trade agreements, the FDA Trilateral Cooperation Charter, and other "one world government" ideologies based on "free trade" that isn't free at all threaten to undermine effective ways for you to take care of your own health.

Then we could talk about how big business has nearly destroyed the quality of our food supply. This scandal runs deep and has for decades. We have the makers of junk food. We have the mass market farming operations and food traders, which have destroyed family farms and communities, while massively polluting the environment. These companies are delivering disease-producing food to the American public and school lunch programs. I'll bet you can't wait to eat a cloned-meat hamburger.

We have chemical contamination of food with toxic and often experimental pesticides. We have the Frankenfood movement, which genetically alters food in a grand experiment on the nature of food itself -- splicing toxins into the essence of the food that everyone is supposed to eat (all for the financial benefit of the biotech industry).

The FDA and EPA are puppet organizations, utter failures in protecting the public health, and little more than unelected government officials (often on the take) acting as economic gatekeepers for those wishing to sell toxic compounds as food or those wishing to further contaminate the environment.

These issues are intimately involved with the cause of cancer and heart disease in this country -- and would cost billions to fix -- yet must be fixed. Otherwise, we will end up spending the same billions on health care.

These are the kinds of issues we need government to solve, so as to improve the health of all Americans. We do not need any more stupid public health programs telling people to eat less and exercise more -- everybody already knows that. Our government could help by having guidelines that force food companies to put real quality food on the table for Americans to eat, while banning the sale of disease-producing additives that permeate our current food supply -- and doing its best to actually clean up our environment to get nasty pollution out of our food supply.

Alas, all you need do is look at the ineptitude of Congress to solve any problem, even when it hits them in the face as a crisis, and you can see that you have little choice but to take your health and the health of your family into your own hands. Congressional "solutions," at least those currently existing and those on the drawing board, will do little more than create another huge economic crisis while pitting Americans against Americans in class and generation warfare. Your best plan is to not need any healthcare because you are healthy. This requires a lot of hard work and doing the right things more often than not. There is no easy path to staying healthy as you age -- but there is a path.

We already know those in Congress can point fingers; can they look in a mirror? Will any real leaders please stand up?
---

The McCain/Palin campaign MUST invest time explaining the FANNIE MAE issue so that it is no longer an arcane issue (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28933&page=4#c1)

I watched a program on Fox News Sunday 10/5 at 9:00 pm CT and read an article by Newt Gingrich dated 10/5/08 on that subject. Both of these presentations made it crystal clear to me that THE DEMOCRATS ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORTGAGE CRISIS MESS. It started in the Carter Administration in 1977 with the CRA. It progressed with Barack Obama's work with ACORN, bullying banks to make risky loans. It strengthened in 1999 with Pres Clinton.

The Bush Admin under Secy Snow called for more regulation of Fannie & Freddie, but Barnie Frank said that would interfere with affordable housing. Alan Greenspan called for more regulation, but none occurred. Instead, Sens. Dodd and Obama became the 2 biggest beneficiaries of Fannie & Freddie in the Senate. In 2005 and 2006 The Republicans in the Senate attempted to pass legislation to prevent Fannie & Freddie from taking more bad loans, but they were prevented from doing so by the Democrats. McCain introduced the bill in 2006.

I'll admit that I am not completely clear on the issue of Regulation. Obama keeps trying to take credit for it, but I am skeptical of that considering the amount of money he received from Fannie/Freddie.Also the Fox program indicates that the Bush Secy called for it in 2003.

At any rate,THE MC CAIN/PALIN CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE DEMOCRATS, NOT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECONOMIC CRISIS CAUSED BY SUBPRIME MORTGAGES AND SEN OBAMA IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS CRISIS. VOTERS SHOULD KNOW THIS, AND THEY SHOULD NOT TURN THE ECONOMY OVER TO HIM. THAT IS ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THEY CAN DO.

If McCain can't explain this, Palin should be able to. She's pretty smart. Certainly, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani could expain this to voters. If this message doesn't get out to the voters, McCain will certainly lose and Obama will benefit by a crisis he caused.
Oct 08, 2008 @ 07:30 PMAndrea Peters, St. Louis
---

I am bewildered why all of the Republicans allow President Bush to be blamed for the economy when it was clearly William Jefferson Clinton who caused the Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac problems in 1999. Compare the NY Times comments and predictions to what we just saw happen.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

'Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. 'Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 'If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.


Obama sued Citibank to force bad loans
Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act

Government Engineered Mortgage Crisis: No Racism Here, Move Along
Posted on 30 September 2008

Nine years ago this month, the New York Times proved to be rather prophetic:

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the governmentsubsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent . In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent .
This whole mess was inspired by rabble-rousing left-wing groups who felt (not thought) that blacks were not getting enough mortgages.

Note, however, that when whites (31%) or Asians (46%) are on the losing end of this equation, it is apparently NOT evidence of any racism. Right, ACORN?

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites , in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
– Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending” , New York Times , 30 September, 1999.
---

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
Posted on 03 October 2008
(For video clips, see http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/)

Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see above article) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.

In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.

Thanks to the IUSB Vision Weblog for providing additional details of this story.

We pulled the docket down, but here’s a brief for your summary:

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

New York Post Article (or see below): O's Dangerous Pals

THE seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions .

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott’s way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36048
Referenced / Associated News Articles (Automatically Generated):

Video UPDATE 4: Obama Audio saying it was a Good Idea to give people loans that couldn’t afford them. (For video clips, see http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/)

We told you before how Obama sued banks with so called “community organizers” to force the banks to give bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Well now we have the audio of Obama saying in 2007 that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford them is a good idea.
---

O'S DANGEROUS PALS
By STANLEY KURTZ

September 29, 2008 --
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.
---

Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami
The Crash: "Why has the market dropped so much?" everyone asks. What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?
October 13, 2008

The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.

And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible.

It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.

Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in.

What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."

It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs.

All the while, it ensures that nothing — absolutely nothing — will be done to secure a sufficient, terror-proof supply of our economic lifeblood — oil — a resource we'll need much more of in the years ahead.

The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.

But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:

"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.

It was "misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s," the economists remind us, that "greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression."

We can't afford to repeat these grave errors.

Yet much of the electorate is determined to vote for the candidate most likely to make them. If he wins, what we consider to be a crisis in today's economy will be a routine affair in tomorrow's.


Mike Adams (www.naturalnews.com):

Remember the $700 billion bailout? It has now ballooned to an estimated $1+ trillion. Hundreds of billions of dollars are bleeding out of the U.S. economy with each passing day...

Here's a quote from Murray Rothbard in 1991:

"At some point in the possibly near future, perhaps in the next recession and the next spate of bad bank loans, it might dawn upon the public that 1.5 percent is not very safe either, and that no such level can guard against the
irresistible holocaust of the bank run. At that point, ignoring the usual mendacious assurances and soothing-syrup of the Establishment, the commercial banks might be plunged into their ultimate crisis. The United States
authorities would then be faced with two stark choices. One would be to allow the entire banking system to collapse, along with virtually all the deposits and depositors in that system. Since, given the mind-set of American
politicians, and their evident philosophy of "too big to fail," it is certain that they would be forced to embrace the second alternative: massive, hyper-inflationary printing of enough cash to pay off all the bank liabilities. The redeposit of such cash in the banking system would bring about an immediate runaway inflation and a massive flight from the dollar. Such a future scenario, once seemingly unthinkable, is now definitely on the horizon. Perhaps realization of this plight will lead to increased interest, not only in gold, but also in a 100 percent banking system grounded upon a revalued gold stock."

- Murray N. Rothbard, 1991 introduction to The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar

If you have not done so already, subscribe to The Daily Reckoning (www.DailyReckoning.com)

Also, read up on the real laws of economics at the Ludwig von Mises Institute: www.Mises.org

If you're really curious about what's happening BEHIND the scenes, read up on the LIBOR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBOR

See the latest LIBOR chart: http://technorati.com/chart/LIBOR?chartdays=180&language=n&authority=a4

10 U.S. States Now Facing Bankruptcy

California, Arizona, New York, Florida and more. See: http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105909/States-That-Can

New report: How to Build Your Financial Safety Net

I've just posted a new special report that's a must-read for anyone concerned about their financial survival in the post-bailout economy.

The report URL is: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Financial_Safety_Net_0.html

This report focuses on strategies for creating your own independent revenue streams using various business ideas and online resources. You'll find it to be loaded with valuable information.

Right now, it's crucial that you work to protect your savings and, if possible, create a new income stream that YOU control.

The Next Big Wave of Bankruptcies: Corporations and Governments

The next wave of bankruptcies are going to strike corporations and governments very soon. The State of California has already declared it's bankrupt, and it needs a $7 billion loan from Washington just to keep operating.

Corporations, too, are going to be badly hurt in the months ahead, especially following the abysmal Christmas shopping season I'm publicly predicting.

If your paycheck currently depends on a government office or a corporation that sells things to consumers (cars, toys, clothing, books, coffee, etc.), then the future of your paycheck may be in serious jeopardy.

Read my "Financial Safety Net" report to get lots of ideas for starting your own business, even if you're not a U.S. resident. Several of the ideas I mention in that report can be done from anywhere in the world, using nothing but internet access.

- Mike Adams

The Health Ranger

P.S. Register now for the Health Ranger LIVE audio event on Financial Protection and Health Preparedness (and get an instant download of the LIVE audio tracks from weeks #1, #2 and #3)

My LIVE Health and Wealth Preparedness audio seminar continues this Wednesday at 7pm, Pacific time. This live event is absolutely packed with money-protecting ideas, wealth creation, health preparedness and much more. I give out ALL the resources I know: Websites, phone numbers of key people, where to get things, what to get, how to store it, what options you have, etc.

If you're concerned about where the world is headed, don't miss out on this live audio event. You can listen in from your web brower (Firefox or IE), plus we'll email you the MP3 file when the event is over! You can also send us LIVE questions, and I'll spend another 30 minutes doing Q&A at the end. Click here to sign up now.

http://www.truthpublishing.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=LIVE-CAT21507


Obama was personally responsible for doing everything he could in order to get the first bailout bill passed. Not many are aware of how much pressure Pelosi, Franks and Reid put on Republicans, and even held back and kept Democratic votes in reserve, actually walking around and tallying how the Republicans were voting, so that there would be enough Republicans so that they could blame the whole bailout on the Republicans. This kind of dirty politics needs to be explained to the voters, along with the facts that the Democrats and ACORN (along with Obama and Franks) caused the problems in the first place by threatening mortgage companies into giving loans to unqualified minorities.
---

Black Caucus members switch votes on bailout bill
The Daily Voice
October 3, 2008

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted 31-8 in favor of the financial rescue bill that passed the House of Representatives on Friday, with several members switching their votes. The vote was a dramatic turnaround for the Caucus from Monday, when most members of the group voted against the plan.

The bill passed the full House of Representatives 263 to 171, just one day after the Senate approved the measure, 74 to 25. Senator Barack Obama personally called members of the CBC, some of whom credited him for changing their minds in favor of the bill, according to the Associated Press.

Thirteen CBC members -- Andre Carson (IN), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Elijah Cummings (MD), Donna Edwards (MD), Al Green (TX), Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (GA), Bobby Rush (IL), David Scott (GA) and Diane Watson (CA) -- who had voted against the bill on Monday switched their votes in favor of it on Friday. Many who switched their votes cited the changes in the proposal made since the Senate passed the measure on Thursday.

Despite tremendous pressure from House Democratic leadership, eight members of the Caucus -- Reps. G.K. Butterfield, William Clay, John Conyers, William Jefferson, Hank Johnson, Donald Payne, Robert Scott and Bennie Thompson -- voted against the final bill on Friday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings and Donna Edwards, both of Maryland, told AP that Senator Obama had contacted them and pledged to help homeowners facing foreclosure on their mortgages if he wins the White House and promised to support changes in the bankruptcy law to help consumers.

Obama warned that the crisis could turn into a "catastrophe" without swift action from Congress.

The Illinois senator and Democratic nominee said he has been reaching out to leaders of both parties to help pass the plan.

"To the Democrats and Republicans who have opposed this plan, I say this: Step up to the plate and do what's right for the country, even if it's not popular, because the time to act is now," he said in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

As part of his lobbying efforts, Obama has called members of the Congressional Black Caucus to support the bailout. When the bailout came up for a vote on Monday, caucus members split 21 against and 18 for the bill, CBC spokeswoman Keiana Barrett said.

Obama campaign Co-chairman Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, was one of the CBC members who voted against the bailout but said he would consider switching if more protections for homeowners are added to the bill.
---

Pat Buchanan:
What is killing the Republican Party is the alteration of the electorate. You have to remember when we put this Nixon coalition together, probably 92 percent of the electorate was white. African-Americans were probably 7 percent, if that, because they didn't vote in the South, and the rest was 1 percent. Now the white population is down to 66 percent and in voting terms it's probably not much more than say 75 percent.

Republican (strategy) is (based on winning) the white vote. Nixon and Reagan won it by 67 and 64 percent and that simply was enough to win the election. But now you've got to do more than that. You've got to start getting some of these other minorities to put together a coalition and eventually, by the time as we move closer to the center of the century, if you got every white vote in the country, you couldn't win on that alone. (laughs) And we can't get them all! (laughs) Let me tell you this to make a flat statement: Foolishly, the Republican Party is condoning the importation of a brand new electorate which will doom the Republican Party.

Ninety percent of the immigrants coming in are from Third World countries and every single minority population which comes from the Third World votes Democratic -- anywhere from 60 percent to 95 percent. These folks are predominately poor -- and they believe in government. And the reason they believe in government is the best of reasons for them; they get more out of it than they pay in. The bottom 30 percent in income in the United States doesn't pay any income taxes at all, I don't think. When Barack Obama says we're going to hit the top 5 percent (of income earners), the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of all income taxes.

I think McCain can still do it, but what he has to do is find a way to make Barack Obama no longer credible as an individual who can be president of the United States in a time of war and economic catastrophe. He has got to impeach his ideas, his record, his agenda and his judgment.

Phyllis Schlafly:
The media are piling on against John McCain and some pundits are predicting it's all over, that Barack Obama has somehow won the election. As the old saying goes, it's not over until the fat lady sings, and it's high time for the fat lady to sing about Obama's scary agenda and the many reasons why it is too risky to elect him president.

We need to hear more about ACORN, the special-interest group that would like to steal this election by registering people who are not eligible to vote, such as registering ghost voters in Nevada under the names of the Dallas Cowboys. Obama's years of close association with ACORN need to be known to the public.

We should hear more about Obama's political friend William Ayers, the unrepentant bomber and Ward Churchill-type professor, who has a really scary plan to remake the curriculum of public schools in order to turn kids into radical socialists like himself. Obama helped deliver big bucks to Ayers' radical education project in Chicago.

Obama has already introduced one bill in the U.S. Senate called "Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act," which would implement Ayers' social-outcome notions, and another to teach kindergartners Al Gore's propaganda about climate change. Voters should be reminded that Obama has called for making "sure your child can speak Spanish."

We need to have further explanations of the hateful attitudes Obama expressed in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father." We need further investigation of author Jack Cashill's evidence that this book was actually ghost-written by William Ayers.

The media have carefully crafted the several presidential debates to avoid two issues that are helpful to John McCain and hurtful to Obama: immigration and abortion. Let's get those issues out on the table.

Voters need to know that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This practice is so unpopular with the voters that it brought down the political career of New York's recent unlamented Gov. Eliot Spitzer and caused the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis.

The one debate where the abortion issue was discussed was at Saddleback Church where Obama revealed his unacceptable attitude with the stupid statement that a discussion of the personhood of an unborn baby is above his pay grade. What's really above his pay grade is the job of U.S. president and commander in chief.

Four-dollar gasoline at the pump and the need for energy independence by drilling for American oil could be the No. 1 issue in the 2008 election. It should be hammered home to the voters that McCain and Sarah Palin are on the right side of this issue and Obama is wrong.

American voters need to be told that the current financial crisis was caused by the liberal policies of men who are mostly Democrats. A September 30, 1999, news article in the New York Times explained how Fannie Mae, under its then chairman and Clinton-appointee Franklin D. Raines, took on "significantly more risk" by demanding that the banks give subprime mortgages to low-income people who could not afford the houses they were buying.

By the end of the Clinton administration, 44 percent of the loans purchased by Fannie Mae were these risky mortgages. ACORN accelerated this practice by getting unemployed people to demonstrate in bank lobbies, demanding that more mortgages be given to people without adequate credit.

Most importantly, the problem (threatening mortgage companies to give loans to unqualified minorities in the name of affirmative discrimination needs to be stopped.)

Good U.S. manufacturing jobs were moving overseas years before the current financial crunch. The Clinton administration globalists, the policies of Clinton's Wall Street friends such as Robert Rubin, and the trade agreements that discriminate against American workers and products are all part of our current economic distress.

The American people should be reminded that everything Barack Obama proposes will require higher taxes. Only tax reduction and the encouragement of good U.S. jobs will promote economic recovery, not tax increases or taxpayer bailouts of the billions lost by avoidable mistakes.

State amendments for traditional marriage are repeatedly adopted by the voters. The public should be reminded that Obama opposes these amendments and said he "respects" the outrageous California same-sex marriage decision.

The Democratic Platform adds, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA is one of the most popular laws ever passed by Congress; it protects us from judges who try to force other states to accept the gay mischief of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut.

The voters should be reminded that Barack Obama is promising all kinds of costly benefits to be paid for by the already burdened taxpayers, such as his bill to implement "the U.S. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015" and "double" our annual spending for this goal.

Voters, not polls or pundits, will decide this presidential election. It's time to make sure the voters have as much information as possible about the candidates.

According to Laura Hollis:
Now -- and this failure is the most critical of all -- McCain appears to be allowing Obama and the Democrats to spread their false and propagandistic version of what caused the banking collapse, utterly uncontested. Instead of telling the public the truth about how two Democratic Presidents and Democrats in Congress manipulated the financial markets, threatened lenders, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to plunder securities, and ignored warnings of impending collapse; instead of hammering home the inexplicable conflicts of interest between Congressman Barney Frank's position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and his lover's position at Fannie Mae; instead of showing the hypocrisy of Obama's receipt of the second-largest campaign contributions from Fannie Mae -- McCain has now decided that the public should reconsider Obama's affiliations with the Reverend Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright and unrepentant bomber and domestic terrorist William ("I'd do it all again") Ayers -- issues that were in the news months ago.

While I agree that Obama's associations are profoundly disturbing, and tell us plenty about his world view and what his goals for government are, the fact is that the public is fixated on the economy at the moment.

It would be one thing if there were no story for McCain to tell. But there is. And McCain and Palin need to tell this narrative to the public. I have personally had conversations with any number of friends and colleagues who were stunned and appalled when confronted with the role of Democratic congressmen in the banking collapse. The National Republican Congressional Committee has a powerful ad that shows the Dems in deep denial. The very same Democrats who are now blaming the Bush administration, while clamoring for even more control over our markets, our financial institutions, our businesses. The truth of these messages can convert people wavering on the issue of the economy, and perhaps leaning towards Obama's seductive siren song of comforting government control.

Why isn't Team McCain moving the ball down the field on this one? It's a simple message: These guys have screwed up enough! Don't take our word for it - we've got it on tape. They've already cost us $850 billion. Why on earth would you put them in charge of anything else?

As with so many other issues, the narrative on the economy favors McCain and Palin. Now if they'd only tell it.
---

Thomas Sowell:
Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions-- members of Congress.

Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.

Such institutions-- exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers' money-- are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: "The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn't when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late." The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to "privatizing profit and socializing risk," since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don't work out.

Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing "concern for (minority-owned) housing" as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were "overblown."

Maxine Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have also been among the liberal Democrats defending Fannie Mae. Just last year, Senator Charles Schumer advocated legislation to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their already huge role in the mortgage market. Republican Congressman Mike Oxley has also defended these hybrid financial giants.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians' political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them.

This is certainly part of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama talks about. But don't expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama's advisers.

The Wall Street Journal, which has for years been sounding the alarm about the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, recently cited Senator Christopher Dodd along with Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Barney Frank among those on Capitol Hill who have been "shilling" for these financial institutions, downplaying the risks and opposing attempts to restrict their free-wheeling role in the mortgage market.

As recently as July of this year, Senator Dodd declared Fannie Mae and Freddie "fundamentally strong" and said there is no need for "panicking" about them. But now that the chickens have come home to roost, Senator Dodd wants to be sure to get some goodies from the rescue legislation to pass out to people likely to vote for him.

Don't make any bets on how this situation is going to turn out-- except that we can predict that politicians will blame the "greed" of other people. You can bet the rent money on that.

Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
---

Walter Williams:
Five years ago, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.

The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution.
---

Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend's Fannie Mae Role

Critics are crying "conflict of interest" over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank's live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.

Moses was Fannie Mae's assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.

He was also openly gay Frank's live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News' Bill Sammon reported.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.

"It's absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.

"He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"But everyone wants to avoid it because he's gay. It's the quintessential double standard."

A top Republican House aide told Fox News: "He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?"

Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998.

National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac "are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector."

In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.
---

IT'S YOUR MONEY
U.S. government should bail out of bailouts
Exclusive: Craig R. Smith says accountability required NOW
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

The last thing government officials should do is try to bail us out of the economic crisis they are responsible for creating in the first place.

The lack of oversight provided by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank of the Banking and Financial Services subcommittee is unprecedented and should require the immediate dismissal of both men. Their decisions, which have in large part brought about the current market crisis, make the decisions made during Hurricane Katrina look like sheer genius.

Campaign contributions have a miraculous way of clouding any career politician's ability to make intelligent choices that would directly benefit the American public. They know those choices will greatly disappoint their 'masters' who run Wall Street and thus slow the flow of campaign money for re-election.

Dodd and Frank had the direct responsibility, in congressional oversight, to protect the American public against abuses of the system. They did not!

I would love to see the campaign contribution records of Dodd and Frank from the banks and financial services companies now at the trough looking for taxpayer money to save them from the very folly that lined their pocket with billions.

Or maybe we should take a closer look at Clinton appointees like Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines who were paid a combined salary of $125 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How about the contributions from Bears Stearns, JP Morgan, AIG, and Merrill Lynch to both political parties who allowed the shenanigans to continue unabated while many watched the problems grow worse by the day?

The fact is this whole crisis was avoidable. As far back as 1987 there were calls in Congress for oversight in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Yet the Clinton administration had no interest. Instead the "more is better," "chicken in every pot" mentality in America forced officials like Barney Frank to allow lenders' greed and Wall Street's hunger for huge fees to create a culture of corruption never before seen in American history.

Democrats, at the time, ignored the fact that many loans were being made to completely unqualified borrowers to buy homes they clearly could not afford. Overnight, home ownership in America became a birthright under the Democrats. Discussions with the Congressional Black Caucus and housing executives from Fannie and Freddie were just one example of how the Democratic Party encouraged irresponsible borrowing behavior.

So what do we do now? We must suffer the pain and do the hard yet necessary things to return to reality or we had better get prepared for a whole lot more pain. These problems did not happen overnight and the solutions will not come overnight. But the longer we fool ourselves with feel-good government bailouts, the longer the problem will remain.

Why are we turning to the very perpetrators for the answers to the problems they caused in the first place? Are we crazy? Go back to the same folks who broke it for a fix?

Free markets works when they are operated under accountability. The only effective help the government can offer would be to immediate halt wasteful spending and begin to reduce the national debt. Fiscal responsibility at the government level would do more to instill confidence than any bailout a bureaucrat can offer. Bureaucrat bailouts are designed to bring new contributions into their campaigns. That is a huge part of the problem. Bailouts do not work unless they are accompanied with accountability.

It would be easy enough to kid ourselves and allow the government to throw huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at the problems and pass it all on to future generations. But that would be like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The patient will still bleed to death, just at a slower pace.

Accountability, not blame, is required NOW. Sacrifice, not politics, is the necessary cure. I know it isn't a popular message but it is reality. Americans are willing to do what it takes to strengthen the country if they know they will not be burned once again by politicians who are more interested in power and position than they are about what is best for America.

It is time for the speaker of the House to drop her blame game and do what is best for America. It is nauseating to listen to the speaker lay blame at the feet of the current administration when she knows all too well that her democratically controlled Congress blocked all attempts to regulate the industry. Why can't both sides stop the attacks and start with the bipartisan cooperation they allegedly desire?

Our best years are ahead if we learn from the mistakes that have been made and not look to government for the answers to our problems. Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem. We must work together. We must allow free markets to punish those who did wrong, weed out the weak borrowers and reward those who borrowed honestly. If we don't, we are headed for even more difficult times.

We can avoid those difficult times if we believe in less government, more personal responsibility and accountability from leaders in both the private and public sectors.
---

Pat Buchanan:
John McCain may have just let slip his last best chance to be president of the United States.

When he flew back to Washington to address the banking crisis, McCain could have seized the hottest issue in America by taking the side of his countrymen who were enraged by the Paulson Plan to bail out a power elite whose greed and stupidity had caused a financial disaster unequaled since the Crash of '29.

But rather than denounce the Bush-Paulson-Pelosi-Barney Frank plan as a rip-off of taxpayers, lacerate Obama and Co. for bedding down with the kleptocrats of Fannie Mae, and advancing his own McCain plan, McCain played the establishment man. He sought modest concessions for the Republican view, urged swift passage and left town.
---

Patrick Wood:
Nevertheless, let's analyze the bailout mania that will most certainly one day be declared the largest and most brazen swindle in the history of the world.

In light of and in response to the rapidly decaying banking emergency, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke went hand in hand to Congress to ask for $700 billion to repair the system. Paulson demanded that no strings be attached; no judicial oversight; no accountability. "Trust us," they said.

Their demand was to take rotted assets off the balance sheets of global banks, and sell them to the U.S. government. No problem raising our national debt by another 12%. No problem that the U.S. credit rating is at risk of being downgraded, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions extra in interest charges to service the existing national debt. No problem that foreign banks can line up at the trough alongside American banks. No problem that the toxic-waste assets don't even have to be backed by U.S. mortgages. No problem that these same global bankers are the ones who trashed the credit markets in the first place.

They loved the Privatization of massive profits and executive bonuses for two decades of excessive risk and creative accounting practices. They now love the socialization of their inevitable losses as their house of cards comes crashing down.

The Paulson/Bernanke proposition to Congress was simple: Pay up or the country will collapse.

Is anyone really for this bailout?

On September 29, just before the Senate and House passed similar bailout legislation, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) made a passionate plea to the House to reject Paulson's and Bernanke's demands. Therein he presented a signed petition of no less than 400 economists, including three Nobel Laureates that stated, in part:

"We ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action."

Meanwhile, Senators and Representatives reported that enraged citizens were flooding email servers and switchboards with demands to vote "NO" on bailout legislation -- up to 99 percent of them!

Yet, the Senate and the House passed the legislation anyway, caving in to tremendous pressure from Pelosi and Frank, behaving like herds of panicked wildebeests on the savanna in Africa.

If everyone other than our elected officials knows that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke are brazenly plundering the United States citizenry, then why did they unanimously pass this bailout legislation?

We've been had, folks

German philosopher Georg Hegel wrote, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Rep. Louis McFadden, who had served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for over 10 years, was hopping mad about the Federal Reserve and its shameless abuse of the U.S. government and its citizens.

In a speech to the House of Representatives, McFadden stated:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed have cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime."

Ouch.

Would you be surprised to learn that McFadden's blistering tirade was not delivered in 2008 but rather in 1934 during the darkest days of the Great Depression?

You see, this isn't the first time in our nation's history that we have been attacked by the "moneyed vultures" who seek to swindle the taxpayer to cover up their own misdeeds.

Read carefully as McFadden continues,

"The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the Fed until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and make to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorite balance of trade. As Agents of the foreign central banks the Fed try by every means in their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these United States. Naturally there has been great competition among foreigners for the favors of the Fed.

"What we need to do is to send the reserves of our National Banks home to the people who earned and produced them and who still own them and to the banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests.

"Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Fed pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which the foreigners claim rights, equal to or greater than Americans. The Fed are the agents of the foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors' money for the benefit of their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States Government and hire it out to foreigners at a profit to themselves.

"All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to stand the drain of it as long as we did.

"We need to destroy the Fed wherein our national reserves are impounded for the benefit of the foreigners. We need to save America for Americans."

In fact, McFadden did actually bring formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion and treason. Unfortunately, the charges were ultimately ignored, allowing the perpetrators to continue for another season.

For many decades thereafter, experts, including Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, have suggested that the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent Great Depression.

In 2002, Ben Bernanke (then merely a Fed governor) delivered a speech on the occasion of Friedman's 90th birthday at the University of Chicago, and addressed Friedman's work on the cause of the Great Depression. Bernanke concluded by stating, "You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

All promises aside, guess what? They're baaack!

FBI opens investigation

On September 24, 2008, right before Henry Paulson demanded bailout funds from Congress, the FBI had an announcement of its own. Namely, that it is investigating Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for fraud, improper accounting practices, conspiracy, etc.

These four companies are the remaining and principal instigators of the subprime credit fiasco. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, there have been accusations of fraud and corruption for as long as they have existed.

But, Paulson and the Treasury had already nationalized them, and shrewdly so: When wrongdoing is ultimately proven, it will be hard to hold anyone accountable or to punish the companies since the U.S. Treasury owns them.

Conclusion

Don't be fooled into thinking that it's just about money: It's also about power.

The Secretary of the Treasury now has near-dictatorial power over this newly formed socialist financial empire.

Robert Pastor (father of the North American Community) said last year that "having a crisis would force decisions that otherwise might not get made."

He was absolutely right. In normal times, the combined Congress would have laughed Paulson and Bernanke right out of town. The current financial crisis has provided cover and every opportunity for the financial cartel to take what little we have left.

Indeed, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
---

The Enemy Within -- Cicero

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
"For the traitor appears not a traitor – he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." – Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C

---

Paulson had previously opposed the idea of Washington buying a stake in banks, which is also permitted under the new law, and instead wanted to force the taxpayers to buy the bad debt, but officials said they are now retooling the aid package to provide a direct capital injection.

"It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Paulson's initial response was distorted by ideology. Remember, he works for an administration whose philosophy of government can be summed up as 'private good, public bad,'" economist Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel price for economics on Monday, wrote in the New York Times.

Mike Adams:
What's happening right now is that the United States is being taken over by King Henry and his accomplices. More than fifty percent of the housing and nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. economy is now controlled by one person -- Henry Paulson -- and that person answers to no one. He isn't elected, he can't be removed from office, and he's subject to no law.

King Henry controls unlimited funds. He can print any amount of money, or confiscate any amount from the taxpayers (by spending taxpayer dollars to bail out his rich friends). If the Federal Reserve is the new Third Reich, King Henry is its Hitler.

The economic war has already been lost by the People. It was lost on September 30, 2008, when Congress surrendered the U.S. economy to King Henry. The People now own nothing but paper money and ephemeral digital account numbers, all of which could be turned into worthless digits overnight by a single decision from King Henry.

In this economic bailout and the Fed's unlimited creation of new money, America has suffered the greatest act of economic warfare in our nation's history. Note carefully that it wasn't conducted by the Nazis, Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda. It was, in fact, put into place by 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans in the House, and a similar majority in the U.S. Senate. (See What You Can Do to End the Tyranny of the Federal Reserve: http://www.naturalnews.com/024486.html)
---

Another fact that you need to remind voters of is that Reverend Wright's church is Marxist, as are most of Obama's long-time friends and Marxists (no matter how he might temporarily try to disassociate himself from them until the election -- point out his history of lying, then revising his statements and website when papers with his signature, etc. are publicized and he can no longer deny it.)
---

Efforts to Help Home Loan Consumers Blocked by Obscure Federal Agency
by Barbara L. Minton

Predatory lenders had a partner in their crimes according to Eliot Spitzer. The Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners from egregious lending practices, choosing instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers as predatory lending became a national disgrace.

In an article for The Washington Post, written shortly before Spitzer's resignation as Governor of New York, he reports that several years ago state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in the range of predatory practices of mortgage lenders. Some lenders were misrepresenting the terms of their loans, granting loans without regard to consumer's ability to repay, using 'teaser' rates that later ballooned into huge payments, filling loans with hidden charges and fees, and in some cases paying illegal kickbacks.

Spitzer was disturbed by these practices which he saw as having a devastating effect on home buyers. He believed that the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened financial markets in America and abroad. The impending crisis was felt so intensely by Spitzer during his term as New York attorney general, that he joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in an attempt to fill the void left by the regulatory arms of the federal government.

Individually and as a group these attorneys general from both political parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in these predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted legislation directed at curbing such practices.

However, as the news that hundreds of thousands of Americans faced foreclosure sent the markets reeling, the Bush administration took no action to halt the burgeoning scourge. The administration not only did nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from taking action to protect their residents from these problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

According to Spitzer, the administration accomplished this feat through the use of an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC came into existence during the Civil War with the mission of ensuring the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, playing an important but uncontroversial role in consumer protection. Then a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers in an unprecedented assault of state legislatures, the state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

During the height of the predatory lending crisis in 2003, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act that allowed it to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. New rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks were also enacted by the OCC.

The attorneys general and all 50 state banking superintendents were astounded by the egregious actions of the federal government, and actively fought the new rules. But this unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter or even slow the Bush administration in its efforts to protect the banks from regulation. In fact, when Spitzer's office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout the battles, the defense of the OCC was that any efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. According to Spitzer, the curbs being sought on predatory and unfair lending practices would have in no way jeopardized consumer's access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced and disclosed loans. Instead, they would have halted the merciless predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy into such a precarious position.
---

A Savage prediction for McCain
Exclusive: Ellis Washington sees senator as a 'moribund, uninspired political hack'

Friday, October 24, 2008
By Ellis Washington

Not only do I predict that John McCain will lose to Obama in a landslide, but that McCain will also lose his Senate seat in Arizona because he ran an incompetent campaign and will soon disappear from the political landscape. ~ Michael Savage's radio show, Oct. 6, 2008

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?) ~ Plato, "The Republic" (question to Socrates)

As we approach the November elections, I -- like many conservatives -- am in a state of impending angst. I am convinced during these perilous times that without the Bible, WorldNetDaily and the Michael Savage radio show to comfort me, I would be certifiable for the asylum by now.

Last Monday, while listening to Dr. Michael Savage perform one of his brilliant impromptu monologues, he made the following statement, which I will paraphrase in the following manner: "Not only do I predict that John McCain will lose to Obama in a landslide, but that McCain will also lose his Senate seat in Arizona because he ran an incompetent campaign and will soon disappear from the political landscape."

As he spoke these words, I felt a burning in my heart like I was listening to a prophet of ancient Israel. While I hoped he was wrong, I knew deep down in my soul that Savage was right. But who's listening? Certainly not the McCain campaign.

Sen. McCain, despite his self-admitted lack of knowledge of economic issues, should be taking a crash course by reading "An Idiots Guide to Economics." He and Palin should be hammering Obama and the Democrats every day regarding the bailout of the Wall Street crooks and incompetent mortgage executives at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others. These corporate criminals have been protected for years by the Democrat majority in Congress, even as Republicans repeatedly sought for tighter regulations of Wall Street and the home mortgage industry.

Instead, what does McCain do? On Sept. 24th he concocted a ridiculous political stunt by suspending his presidential campaign and traveling to Washington, D.C., ostensibly to help the Senate steal $1 trillion dollars from the American people in order to pay off the arrogant thieves of Wall Street and their Democrat enablers in Congress, particularly Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, chairmen of the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee, respectively.

Why would Sen. John McCain, a so-called "conservative Republican," so cavalierly misuse the taxpayers' money by voting for this outrageous $1 trillion corporate welfare bailout bill, yet seems oblivious to his own political suicide by continually angering his conservative base?

The fix is in.

Savage then did a masterful analysis of the current congressional hearing of Lehman CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. who received $350 million in compensation just since 2000, including a $20 million bonus shortly before for bankrupting Lehman Brothers, a once-vaunted investment bank on Wall Street that has existed for almost 160 years!

Below are some excerpts of the testimony from a New York Times article:

At the start of 2008, Mr. Fuld said he believed that Lehman's capital position was strong and that it did not face an impeding liquidity crisis. It was on that basis that he approved billions in compensation and other cash payments, he said. As late as five days before Lehman's collapse, investors were told in a conference call that no new capital would be needed, that the bank's real estate investments were properly valued.
"Did you mislead your investors?" Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio, asked Mr. Fuld.

"No sir, we did not mislead our investors, and to the best of our ability at the time, we made disclosures that we believed to be accurate," Mr. Fuld responded.

Mr. Fuld's individual compensation, which totaled some $350 million since 2000, was repeatedly criticized by lawmakers. But Mr. Fuld pointed out that he had still held 10 million shares in Lehman when the bank filed for bankruptcy, and therefore lost out on tens of millions in additional compensation.

Savage then reminds Congress that as part of its investigatory powers, they can immediately arrest someone brought before one of its committees who is found to commit perjury while under oath.

What galls me the most regarding Fuld's testimony is the last sentence where he arrogantly and in an accusatory manner states that, "he had held 10 million shares in Lehman when the bank filed for bankruptcy, and therefore lost out on tens of millions in additional compensation."

Boo hoo hoo!

Fuld's jaded, selfish view of America's dire financial collapse is extremely insulting to all Americans of good will. It was as if he was some great heroic figure that was doing America a favor by giving up tens of million dollars of his ill-gotten gain.

While the hubris of Fuld and the titans of Wall Streets is beyond the pale, Savage reminded his listeners of Plato's paradox from his magnum opus, "The Republic," where Socrates answers the question: Who will guard the guardians? with these words for the ages:

"... [W]e must choose from among our guardians those men who, upon examination, seem most of all to believe throughout their lives that they must eagerly pursue what is advantageous to the city and be wholly unwilling to do the opposite."
Analysis: Plato's Socrates is clearly saying that in addition to having the wisdom-loving and spirited parts of their souls well-trained, the rulers of his ideal state are to have a very highly developed sense of social concern [care] (throughout their lives, he says, they are to be tested to see that they don't put their own advantage above that of the state).

Essentially, Plato's Socrates contends that the guardians will guard themselves. This view admittedly is Pollyannaish; however, in his defense, Plato hadn't considered scoundrels like Fuld, Wall Street and their enablers in the Democrat majority of Congress -- men who place profits above people, principle and morality. Surely in the ideal republic or state these men would not be allowed to benefit from their thievery, right?

About 200 years before Plato's dialogues on Socrates were written, 2,600 years ago, the great biblical prophet Ezekiel declared: I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. So it is in America today.

As the stock market continues to drop around the world, I am not at all hopeful that those who have abused our financial system in America will not only profit greatly, but are enabled by our very own guardians (i.e., Congress, the president, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the courts) who are supposed to protect the interests of "We the People" over their own selfish needs.

Tragically, McCain is neither the philosopher-king that Plato exalted in "The Republic," nor the man to stand in the gap as the ancient prophet Ezekiel longed for the nation of Israel. McCain seems to be an example of an old, moribund, uninspired political hack of a bygone era who is desperately trying to have his last hurrah on the backs of America's taxpayers.

America's other choice for president is a certified Marxist Manchurian Candidate against whom I probably played basketball 20 years ago while at Harvard.
---

Efforts to Help Home Loan Consumers Blocked by Obscure Federal Agency
http://www.naturalnews.com/023290.html

Mortgage Meltdown Shows Americans Are Unable to Benefit From Experience
http://www.naturalnews.com/023872.html

Salaries in the U.S. and Canada Threatened by Globalization
http://www.naturalnews.com/023760.html

The Fed's Financial Bailouts Will Rob Americans of Their Future
http://www.naturalnews.com/023111.html

How to Protect Your Assets as the Financial Crisis Worsens
http://www.naturalnews.com/024323.html

What Your Employer May Not Tell You About Retirement Accounts
http://www.naturalnews.com/024222.html

Americans in Jeopardy From Financial System Rescue Plan
http://www.naturalnews.com/024182.html

10 Steps to Personal Power in Trying Times
http://www.naturalnews.com/Author358.html

Americans Question the Legality of the Income Tax
http://www.naturalnews.com/022856.html

The Declining Dollar and What It Means for You
http://www.naturalnews.com/022662.html

The Hegelian Principle Helps Explain How the Powerful Got That Way
http://www.naturalnews.com/023727.html

Global Food Crisis Looms as Corporations Seize Control of Commodities
http://www.naturalnews.com/023757.html

Spiraling Food Prices Result in Deadly Violence Around the World
http://www.naturalnews.com/023277.html

No End Seen to Cartel's Destruction of Food Capacity
http://www.naturalnews.com/024023.html

Brazil's Oil Independence May Not Be a Model Worth Emulating
http://www.naturalnews.com/024082.html

Is the Federal Reserve Engaged in Acts of Economic Warfare Against America?
http://www.naturalnews.com/024427.html

What You Can Do to End the Tyranny of the Federal Reserve
http://www.naturalnews.com/024486.html

http://www.financialarmageddon.com/